Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

PETITION

British Museum

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have to submit to this House each year, explaining their financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual produce of the funds, and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried on without the aid of Parliament.
It concludes with this Prayer:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament, for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet.—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Capital Punishment

Mr. F. Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for a national referendum to ascertain public opinion regarding a revision of the Homicide Act, 1957, to permit the full restoration of capital punishment for murder.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): No, Sir. The referendum is not part of our constitutional practice.

Mr. Harris: As the Homicide Act, 1957, was a compromise and does not seem to satisfy any opinion, and as Parliament does not seem to wish to resolve this unsatisfactory state of affairs, would it not be wise to test public opinion and ascertain what I consider to be the view of the majority, namely, that they require the full restoration of capital punishment as a deterrent?

Mr. Butler: I would rather the House of Commons expressed its opinion than that we referred the matter to a referendum. I do not wish to counter any of my hon. Friend's ideas or anything of that sort at this stage. All I am sticking to is the constitutional position, on which I would prefer the House of Commons to pronounce.

Mr. S. Silverman: I respectfully agree with the Home Secretary's reply on that part of the Question which asks for a national referendum. Nevertheless, does he not agree that it is an extremely odd position that an Act of Parliament, which has been in operation for three or four years now and is defended by him as being in order to satisfy public opinion, should result in a situation in which, so far from public opinion being satisfied, it has the support of nobody?

Mr. Butler: It must have the support of some of those who voted to bring it into force, but that is a matter of opinion. It was, as my hon. Friend said, in some respects a compromise. I referred to this aspect of it in speaking on the Criminal Justice Bill. I do not think that I can usefully add to what I said then. On this


question, which is a matter of constitutional procedure, I advise my hon. Friend to adhere to the processes of Parliament.

Immigrants

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that immigration into the United Kingdom for the first two months of 1961 is running at about five times the rate of 1960, and that the 1960 immigration figures were higher than for any previous year; to what extent the number of immigrants will be taken into account when deciding whether control and limitation should be applied; if he will now introduce emergency legislation to deal with this problem in accordance with public demand; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the great increase in immigration from the Commonwealth so far this year, what stage has been reached in the consideration of measures to control the inflow.

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the great increase of immigration into the United Kingdom from certain Commonwealth countries during the early part of 1961, as compared with a similar period in 1960; and whether he will now introduce legislation to deal with the problem.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My right hon. Friend has noted my hon. Friends' points, but he has nothing to add to recent statements on this subject.

Mr. Osborne: We have been waiting for years for a statement. May I ask my hon. and learned Friend these questions? First, how many coloured immigrants does he think the country can safely absorb? Secondly, is he aware that the nation is frightened and alarmed at the flood of coloured people coming into the country? Thirdly, will he introduce legislation before the Summer Recess to cure it?

Mr. Renton: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that it is a matter of opinion. The second part was, I think, with respect to him,

not a question but a statement of opinion. With regard to the third point, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day. He stated:
I made it perfectly clear that, as stated in the debate, this matter was one which caused us considerable anxiety and that both sides sees the difficulties but that at present we had reached no firm conclusion.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 491.]
I do not dispute my hon. Friend's figures. In the first three months of this year, 19,250 immigrants came from the West Indies and other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Pannell: In view of the alarming increase in the number of immigrants from India and Pakistan—there were 6,600 for the first three months of this year compared with 250 for the same period last year—can my hon. and learned Friend say whether the voluntary restrictions imposed by the Indian and Pakistini Governments have broken down? If so, will the Government make urgent representations to those Governments for the restrictions to be reimposed?

Mr. Renton: So far as we are aware, there has been no change of policy on the part of the Governments of India and Pakistan. I will make inquiries to explore my hon. Friend's statement that these arrangements have broken down.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In order to get this matter into better perspective, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider breaking down the total figure of immigration into men, women and children, because this makes a great deal of difference to our judgment of the inflow?

Mr. Renton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will table a Question on that point.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is it not short-sighted to allow people to come here to create a problem which has been found insoluble elsewhere?

Mr. Shinwell: When the hon. and learned Gentleman is breaking down these figures for the information of hon. Members, will he at the same time furnish the figures of emigrants from this country to Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Fisher: If the Government contemplate at any time restrictive action in this matter, will they bear in mind that there is a difference between imposing restrictions on a Colonial Territory and negotiating arrangements with an independent Commonwealth country? Can they at least defer a decision concerning the West Indies, at any rate until the West Indies become independent in a year's time?

Mr. Osborne: What is the number that the Government feel we in this country can safely absorb? My hon. and learned Friend says that that is a matter of opinion. What is the Government's opinion on it? May I have an answer to that?

Mr. Renton: As I have made clear and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear only the other day, we are considering these matters and have not yet reached a firm conclusion on them.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received in favour of limiting immigration of citizens from the Commonwealth and Eire.

Mr. Renton: One hundred and sixty since the beginning of this year.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say how many of the letters came from local Conservative associations, some of which, as in Brixton, exploit the colour prejudice at election time for vote-catching purposes? Do they take the trouble to write to the Home Office representing their views on the subject?

Mr. Renton: I have myself seen a very large number of these letters. I do not say that I have seen all of them. I honestly do not recollect any single one of them having been sent by a Conservative association.

School Crossing Patrols

Mr. Randall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent there is a shortage of school crossing patrols employed by the Metropolitan Police; and, in view of the fact that pay has not been increased for a number of years, when discussions will take place with the trade unions concerned

on the application made on 4th January, 1961, for an increase in pay and a review of the holiday agreement.

Mr. Renton: The Commissioner of Police, who is school crossing authority for the Metropolitan Police District, would like to recruit considerably more than the 1,200 school crossing patrols at present employed. I understand chat the application made on behalf of the patrols for an increase in pay has been discussed between representatives of the Commissioner and of the trades unions, and that a further meeting is likely to take place soon.

Mr. Randall: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that information. Is he aware, however, that there is considerable unrest among the school crossing patrols about their rates of pay, which have not been changed for some years and which compare most unfavourably with those of the traffic wardens? Is he further aware that the worst ever shortage of school crossing patrols is reported in the provinces, particularly in Manchester and in some of the other large provincial cities? Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman press on with this matter so that there may be satisfaction among this valiant body of people?

Mr. Renton: The last pay increase was made with effect from 1st January, 1958. There is recognised negotiating machinery and there is a right to go to arbitration. We should let that machinery work. It certainly would not be right for me to comment while a claim is being negotiated.

Sexual Offences

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit male persons who have been convicted of sexual offences against children perpetrated in cars, lorries, or vehicles, from holding for life any form of driving licence on completion of their sentence or sentences.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend and he well understands and sympathises with the feelings which


have prompted it. He is not convinced, however, that it offers an effective or appropriate method of dealing with the problem.

Commander Kerans: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will agree that this type of crime is very much on the increase? There is an example in The Times today of a man attempting to rape a girl of 14 years, for which he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Surely the imposition of this suggestion of mine would act as a deterrent and would prevent this loathsome type of crime being perpetrated by these individuals.

Mr. Vosper: These crimes certainly attract a great deal of publicity. When the Cambridge Department of Criminal Science investigated sexual offences in 1957, it found that 3·4 per cent. of these offences were committed in a vehicle. The difficulty is that the possession of a car facilitates the commission of many crimes and it would be difficult to find a reason for singling out sexual offences as a reason for the prohibition of driving.

Convicted Immigrants (Deportation)

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the observations by Mr. Justice Hilbery in the Court of Criminal Appeal on 27th March, when sentencing a Nigerian who had already had 16 convictions to four years' imprisonment for living on the earnings of prostitution, to the effect that the law prevented deportation orders being made in such cases where it was desirable to do so, if he will reconsider the need to introduce legislation concerning deportation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to seek powers to deport Commonwealth immigrants who are convicted of crimes.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State in the reply to the debate on 17th February.

Mr. Osborne: When will my right hon. Friend have something to add? Does

not he think that it is plainly stupid that we as a nation have not the power to deport men of this type from our midst? Is it not time that he took power to deport them?

Mr. Butler: The question of deportation raises big issues, but not quite as big issues as that of immigration. I have indicated that the power would not involve a great many people in the course of a year. We must, however, take it in conjunction with the other problem which is in process of being considered very carefully by the Government as a whole and is awaiting the Prime Minister's return from his tour. I should not like to give the House the impression that we are likely to have legislation this Session. Meanwhile, I should like to listen to the views expressed by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If the right hon. Gentleman decides to extend the law as indicated in the Question, will he take good care to ensure that he does it, not on a colour basis or on a basis which would discriminate against any particular class, but on a basis which will deal only with the criminality of the person involved? Is it not a fact that ample law already exists to deal with criminal aliens and their deportation to their own country? The extension sought in the Question would extend the law in a very undesirable way, perhaps to British citizens.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; we would never envisage legislation on a colour basis. It would have to be passed on general considerations of the Commonwealth. There is quite a case for deportation of undesirable characters, as we do in the case of foreigners. Nearly every Government in the Commonwealth or in the colonial system has powers of this sort. Therefore, it is not altogether an unreasonable proposal. We are simply not yet ready to come to a decision.

Carlisle State Management Scheme (Capital Assets)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the net value of the capital assets of the Carlisle State Management District.

Mr. Vosper: The book value of the fixed assets of the Carlisle State Management Scheme, as shown in the Annual


Report on the State Management Districts for the year ended 31st March, 1960, was £967,707.

Mr. Ridley: In view of that Answer, it seems to me that the return of £100,000 to the Exchequer is on the low side. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that the taxpayer is not being asked to subsidise the beer of those who live in Carlisle and district.

Mr. Vosper: The point is that this is the original book value of the assets. Revaluation would show a considerably higher figure, which would go a long way to answering my hon. Friend's question.

Charitable Trusts

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation permitting the Charity Commissioners to enable the idle resources accumulated in charitable trusts no longer operated, or in disaster and emergency funds which have met all their needs, to be transferred, under proper control, to useful social work.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend feels confident that the enlarged powers of the Charity Commissioners under the new Charities Act to make schemes for the effective use of charitable resources will prove sufficient.

Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister ascertain the extent of these funds, because they must amount to scores of millions of £s, dating back to the Boer War or even earlier, and are accumulating yearly? While I appreciate the Minister's Answer, can he tell the House whether there has been any action following the Charities Act, 1960, to see that these vast sums are transferred to useful social purposes?

Mr. Renton: Until registration under the Charities Act is complete, a process which is likely to take several years, it will be impossible to say what these funds amount to. From our information, however, they certainly do not amount to millions of £s. Possibly the best and most helpful suggestion that I can make to the hon. Member is that if he knows of any case or cases of unspent disaster funds, he should get in touch first with the trustees and then, if necessary,

with the Charity Commissioners, who can offer helpful advice.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Under-Secretary make it clear that there is no need to await registration before trustees who have these unspent funds can apply to the Charity Commissioners? Is it not most important that the new powers given by the Charities Act should be as widely known as possible and the fullest use made of them?

Mr. Renton: I fully agree with the hon. Member.

Furness Road, N.W.10 (Complaints)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received in the past two years by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis from residents in the area of Furness Road, N.W.10, of nuisance caused by a waste recovery factory; if he will specify what action has been taken; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that six letters have been received from local residents and several from the Furness Road Residents Association as well as two letters from the hon. Member himself. Representations were also received from the Willesden Borough Council. In addition, an unrecorded number of oral complaints have been dealt with on the spot. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member in reply to a Question on 28th March, the police have continued to give attention to the matter and have taken appropriate action when offences have been observed.

Mr. Pavitt: Whilst I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, and appreciate the efforts being made by the police, the number of complaints indicate that there is widespread anxiety in the area about the nuisance that is being caused. Will the Under-Secretary press the police to continue their efforts until a solution can be reached?

Mr. Renton: Yes. In fact, there have been a number of convictions. There have been seven convictions in nine cases and one case is still pending. The factory owners have agreed provisional terms with the county valuer for a new site in Hounslow and the purchase by the


Willesden Borough Council of their existing premises in Furness Road is being negotiated by the district valuer.

Air-Raid Shelters

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases local authorities have sought his permission to demolish air-raid shelters in each of the last five years; and in how many cases he has granted permission.

Mr. Renton: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not readily available. Permission has been given to demolish about 12,000 shelters in the last five years.

Mr. Swingler: Will not the hon. and learned Gentleman do something to try to speed up this process of demolishing shelters? Will he draw the attention of local authorities to the fact that many of these shelters throughout the country are in a state of decay and are both unsightly and frequently insanitary? Will he ask the local authorities to carry out an inspection of them so that the Home Secretary may approve of the widespread demolition of those which are objectionable?

Mr. Renton: Nearly all local authorities are conscious of the need to keep this question under consideration all the time and we get a number of applications. As, however, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in December, it remains the policy of the Government to preserve sound air-raid shelters as far as possible.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact, however, that some of these air-raid shelters gave only limited protection under the conditions of the last war and that under the conditions of today they act rather to harbour vermin and to attract young children under most undesirable conditions? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some local authorities advise me that they cannot take down these shelters because of the instructions of the Home Office? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Renton: I am not aware of any obstruction by the Home Office. As I said in my main Answer, about 12,000 shelters have been abolished in the last five years. We feel that the shelters

from the last war would provide good protection against nuclear weapons outside the area of complete destruction, particularly if they were improved in various ways. Where they are clearly insanitary or dangerous, the local authority makes an application to get rid of them and we accede to that application.

Victims of Crime (Compensation)

Mr. W. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of recent cases in which omnibus conductresses, whilst standing on the platform of their omnibuses, have been injured by hooligans, and have been refused benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act by the local tribunals; and whether he will now introduce legislation to ensure that compensation is received by innocent people who are criminally injured in the course of their employment.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the policy of the Government regarding the compensation of victims of crimes of violence.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and he informs me that he is not aware of any recent cases of the kind mentioned in the Question by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards). On the general question of the compensation of victims of crimes of violence, I have received the report of the official working party, which has shown that the subject is one of considerable complexity. This is still being examined and I hope in due course to make its terms public.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance is not present, otherwise I would have been able to put the question to him. May I, however, be allowed to inform the Home Secretary that there are recent cases as stated in my Question? There was a case only recently in Greenock. There was a case in 1958, when a bus conductor was hurt whilst carrying out his duties on the bus, but industrial injuries benefit was refused by the divisional court on the ground that


the Act did not permit it. If the Act does not protect these public servants working on buses and in other forms of transport when they are hit on the head with a bottle, as was the case with the bus conductor in Greenock, surely something should be done quickly either to alter the Industrial Injuries Act or to introduce special legislation to help these victims.

Mr. Butler: This is a matter chiefly for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Benefits in the scheme are limited to accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. The interpretation of this phrase is, in the last resort, a matter for the courts. I think that the best thing for the hon. Member would be to give me particulars of his cases and I will consider them with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Prentice: Concerning the wider question of compensating victims of crimes of violence, will the Home Secretary bear in mind that a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) is before the House? This is the second year in succession that there has been such a Bill. Could not the right hon. Gentleman adopt it, assist its passage and amend it as necessary in Committee? If he cannot see his way clear to do that, does he expect that the Government will introduce legislation, bearing in mind that the longer the delay that occurs, the more people will be injured without any scheme of compensation to protect them?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the Bill which is before the House. The matter is a little more complex than that covered by the Bill. It is all a question of the sort of crimes for which there should be compensation and the method of doing it. That is why I should aid discussion if I were to publish at least the terms of the report in the manner most suitable and obtain public reaction to them, because quite a lot of principle and also a lot of money are involved. We should have to find the money and decide the principle. With the aid of the House, we might then be able to do so.

Miss Bacon: Concerning the special problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards),

would the Home Secretary not agree that this is a matter for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance? Will he again consult his right hon. Friend to make sure that these injuries would be regarded as injuries arising out of and in course of the employment of the people affected? On the general question, while I agree with the Home Secretary chat this is a complex matter, would he not agree that it is also an urgent one? While he has not yet made the report public, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it deals merely with compensation or whether it deals also with the, perhaps, more difficult question of restitution by the criminal?

Mr. Butler: The report deals fundamentally with the question of compensation for crimes of violence. That is some advance. The question of restitution by the individual is one on which I have made several pronouncements and which we might, perhaps, discuss at the same time. With regard to the individual cases raised by the hon. Member for Stepney, there is, of course, a normal procedure which goes through the local insurance officers and appeal from them to the local appeal tribunals and from them to the Industrial Injuries Commissioner. We must be careful to preserve that position. What I suggest is that these cases should be examined by my right hon. Friend, to whom I will pass them.

Bottles (Use)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that domestic bleach, sodium hypochlorite, is sold in bottles similar to those used for beverages, without labels warning that it is dangerous to drink; and if he will take steps to ensure that it is packaged and labelled more appropriately.

Mr. Vosper: Arrangements made by the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers are designed to prevent the use of bottles that might cause domestic bleach to be mistaken for a beverage. On the information at present before him, my right hon. Friend does not think that action on his part is necessary.

Mr. Driberg: Does that mean that there has recently been a change in the kind of bottle that is used?

Mr. Vosper: These arrangements date from 1948, but they have been constantly reviewed.

Taxicabs (Design)

Sir J. Barlow: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, when issuing licences, he will make it a condition that in future London taxicabs must be so constructed that passengers using the back seats do not have to remove their hats to avoid continually knocking the brim of the rear thereof against the back roof of the taxicab.

Mr. Vosper: The current design of taxi which appeared on the roads for the first time in 1959 is, I am informed, satisfactory in this respect in the case of passengers and hats of normal dimensions.

Sir J. Barlow: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and I quite agree that the newer types of taxis are better, does he not realise—has he not found out for himself with his great height—that the lower doors make it more difficult for people to enter, and likewise the new taxis are more difficult for the aged because there is no step?

Mr. Vosper: I do not think I am of normal dimensions. The point that I had particularly in mind was the back-shelf improvement in the 1959 version. I shall look at the other point which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I think he will find that the 1959 version is more satisfactory.

Refractory Prisoners

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now been able to make special arrangements for refractory prisoners who hitherto have had to be segregated in solitary confinement; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have decided to set aside a small wing in Brixton prison for the reception of prisoners whose record of violence in prison makes it imprudent to allow them to associate with other prisoners in normal conditions. These prisoners, who have hitherto had to be kept in solitary confinement, sometimes for long periods, will be allowed a degree of

association under careful supervision. They will receive special attention from the medical officer and the psychologist and, although discipline will be strict, every attempt will be made to give the régime a diagnostic and therapeutic bias. The wing can hold up to twenty prisoners and will, I hope, be in operation at the beginning of May.

Mr. Driberg: While welcoming this experiment, which may obviously tend to make life easier for prison officers in some other prisons and which will also, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, help to end the need for these unduly long periods of solitary confinement, may I ask him about one particular case which I have brought to his notice? Is it likely that my constituent, prisoner No. 1 in Dartmoor, will be among those sent there immediately?

Mr. Butler: I should like to have notice of that supplementary question.

Mr. Driberg: I have already given the right hon. Gentleman notice of it, in two letters.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why Brixton has been singled out in this matter? Is he satisfied that adequate staff will be available to see that the experiment does not lead to even greater trouble?

Mr. Butler: The experiment has nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman, but the staff will be adequate.

Car-Parking (Obstruction of Footway)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent action has been taken to reduce car-parking on pavements in Westminster.

Mr. Renton: As the hon. Member was informed on 16th February, special attention is paid by the police, within the limits of available manpower, to the practice of parking cars on the footway. Since 24th February this year, in the Rochester Row Sub-Division, which includes the area to which the hon. Member's earlier Question referred, 31 drivers have been reported for obstruction of the footway and dealt with by way of process or written caution; 44 vehicles have been removed; and 265 oral warnings have been given for obstruction.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of the culprits, including Ministers of the Crown, one of whom is present at the moment, continue, according to my information, to indulge in this reprehensible practice of parking cars on the footway? Will he give an assurance that there is not one law for Ministers of the Crown and another law for ordinary citizens?

Mr. Renton: I can certainly give the assurance asked for. In our democracy, Ministers of the Crown are as much subject to the law as anyone else. It is, of course, a question for the police to decide whether or not there is obstruction of the pavement. Placing a car on the pavement is not in itself an offence, any more than is sitting on the pavement; but it is a question for the police to decide and not one upon which my right hon. Friend can make a decision.

Murders

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Sir THOMAS MOORE (Ayr): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the result of his analysis of recent murders has now been completed; whether he is yet in a position to say whether there has been any appreciable increase in the number of sexual offences against young girls since the passing of the Street Offences Act; and how many deaths have resulted from such offences.

Sir T. Moore: This Question has been put down to rectify a stupid blunder I made last week.

Hon. Members: Which one?

Mr. R. A. Butler: The analysis of murders being carried out by the Home Office Research Unit is continuing, and I shall arrange for the results to be made public when the work is completed. Since the Street Offences Act was passed there have been five deaths of girls under 17 initially recorded by the police as murder which were committed in circumstances suggesting that the motive of homicide was probably of a sexual nature; in a corresponding period immediately before the Act there were seven such deaths. As regards sexual offences generally against women I cannot add to the reply I gave to a Question

by my hon. Friend on 16th February, which showed that the number of these offences had not increased since the passing of the Street Offences Act.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is no connection between this apparent increase in sexual offences against children and young girls and the fact that men are now deprived of their normal access to satisfaction of their needs?

Mr. Butler: I am satisfied that in fact the figures show the opposite, namely, five since, in the comparative period, and seven before, in the comparative period. I do not attach particular importance to statistics, but if they show anything they show that there has been a decrease. With regard to the other observations of my hon. Friend, I would say that in my view the Act has been of great benefit, if only through example, and I believe that it has been widely recognised as such, at any rate in the Metropolis and other main centres.

Miss Bacon: Apart from sexual offences committed against young girls, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether or not it is more difficult now for the police to keep track of young girls coming to London, particularly some ex-Borstal girls who on being set free may get into undesirable company?

Mr. Butler: This is a matter of opinion. I shall take it up with the police, particularly with the Metropolitan Police, for whom I am responsible, in view of the hon. Lady's question.

Prison Officers

Mr. Deedes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the number of prison officers.

Mr. R. A. Butler: An increase of pay ranging from 18s. 6d. to 25s. 6d. a week for the basic grade was agreed in January last. The excellent opportunities for men and women in this service should be more widely known, and I am therefore embarking on a very intensive series of test advertising campaigns in the North and North West of England. The service is doing a fine job and offers an attractive career.

Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend answer one point? Does he regard the present establishment as


altogether satisfactory? There are, I believe, something like six prisoners to one officer. Is any attempt being made to raise the establishment as well as to bring the force up to the level of establishment?

Mr. Butler: As I shall be saying in answer to a later Question, the whole matter of the present régime is under review by the Prison Commissioners. In general, contrary to certain reports in the Press, the establishment is, in most cases, sufficient, but I am paying special attention to any claims made that in certain overcrowded prisons there may be difficulties and I will, if my hon. Friend desires, keep in touch with him on this question.

Walton Gaol, Liverpool (Disturbances)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the recent disturbances at Walton Gaol, Liverpool.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On the afternoon of 17th April, seven of the 161 prisoners in the canvas workshop suddenly stopped work, picked up chairs and began to break windows. On being restrained they went quietly to their cells. Shortly afterwards 240 men from another shop sat down in the exercise yard. When ordered to return to the prison they did so. That evening there was some shouting and banging on cell doors, but the prison quietened down at about 11.15 p.m.
On Tuesday, 18th April, except for star prisoners and young prisoners, the men were kept in their cells. In the late afternoon 40 young prisoners in the dismantling shop downed tools. On being instructed to return to work all but two did so. The same afternoon a small fire, deliberately started, was discovered in the young prisoners' carpenters' shop. Damage was small. The police are preferring charges against one prisoner.
The seven prisoners who caused damage in the canvas shop have been remanded to the Visiting Committee; the others concerned have been punished by the Governor. Further disciplinary action will be taken if there is any recurrence of disorder. I have the whole question of discipline in prisons under review with the Prison Commissioners.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Home Secretary think that these disturbances at Walton Gaol, Liverpool, following upon disturbances and riots at other prisons in various parts of the country, indicate that there is something seriously wrong with the staffing of our prisons? Is not the real remedy to increase the numbers and improve the conditions of present staffs?

Mr. Butler: I would not say that there is something fundamentally wrong with the staffing. In most cases it is all right. What is wrong is the overcrowding of prisons, which is really what has caused this. I have the whole matter under review, however, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for enabling me to make that public.

Mr. N. Pannell: Does my right hon. Friend accept the possibility that his reluctance to confirm awards of corporal punishment for attacks on warders has been a contributory factor to recent outbreaks?

Mr. Butler: I saw something in the newspapers which was totally inaccurate on this question. I should be glad to give the figures on confirmation if my hon. Friend puts down a Question. He will find that in most cases, at any rate recently, awards have been confirmed at the request of the visiting committee.

Mr. V. Yates: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether these disturbances are due to complaints about the food in these prisons, which has deteriorated in the last two years? Would he look into this and satisfy himself that it is not a contributory factor?

Mr. Butler: I have visited many prisons and have partaken of the food. It is one of the features of the life of a Home Secretary that he does so when he visits a prison. I do not think that in general the food is bad, but when we have had complaints we have done our best to remedy matters.

Streatfeild Committee (Report)

Miss Bacon: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make a statement on the report of the Streatfeild Committee on the Business of the Criminal Courts.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Streatfeild Committee has produced a most valuable and stimulating Report, and I am glad to be able to express the Government's appreciation of its work. My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, and I are studying carefully the important issues which the Report raises and the steps needed to implement its recommendations, but I have as yet no statement to make.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that speeding up the business of the courts is one of the ways in which gross overcrowding in our prisons can be alleviated? Is he aware that about 10,000 people a year are remanded in custody and that of these about 1,300 stayed in prison on remand for over eight weeks? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, apart from the effect on individuals, this in one way in which, to use the words of the Streatfeild Committee, we can alleviate the clogging up of the prison system?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It was because of this that I appointed the Streatfeild Committee as one of the several reforms that I have undertaken. Now, having received the Committee's Report, I think that we shall be able to do something about speeding up matters, and that in turn will alleviate prison conditions.

Remand Homes

Miss Bacon: asked the Secreary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that approved schools get 100 per cent. grant from the Government and remand homes only 50 per cent., if he will increase the amount payable in respect of remand homes.

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member is misinformed. The cost of approved schools, like that of remand homes, is shared equally between the Exchequer and local authorities.

Miss Bacon: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in most cases the approved schools are run by voluntary organisations and local committees? Would he not agree that there is a desperate shortage of places in remand homes and that the Criminal Justices Bill will mean that more remand places will be needed than were needed before? Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore

treat the provision of places in remand homes as a matter of great urgency?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend certainly accepts the problem created by the insufficiency of remand home places. One must compare like with like and I was comparing remand homes with local authority approved schools, but even here there are negotiations going on to see whether any financial burden can be relieved for the local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL ON TRIBUNALS (SUBMISSION)

Mr. Corfield: asked the Attorney-General when he expects to be able to make an announcement with regard to the submission recently made to him by the Council on Tribunals concerning the grant of planning permission for the working of chalk at Stansted, Essex.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): This matter was referred to my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, by the Council on Tribunals in pursuance of Section 1 (1, c) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958. My noble Friend will be replying today to a Question on the subject which has been put down for Written Answer in another place.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWAZILAND

Schools

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) if he is aware that permission has been given by the Education Department for the building of 137 private schools in Swaziland and that their sponsors have been warned that it appears most unlikely that any will receive Government aid for many years to come; and what proposals he has for remedying the shortage of schools in this Territory;
(2) whether he is aware that in order to absorb over the next 10 years 75 per cent of the school age population in Swaziland now outside school in classes of 30 some 600 teachers will be needed; and what plans he has for securing them.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): The schools maintained by the


Government of Swaziland, and Government-aided schools operated by voluntary agencies, together account for about 80 per cent. of enrolments. These schools cater for more than three times as many students as those mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's Question, and are receiving priority in the allocation of available funds from the Government. Regarding teachers, the teaching establishment of schools for Africans has grown from 600 to 1,000 since 1955, and is growing at the rate of some fifty to fifty-five posts a year.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that his very complacent answer will not give great satisfaction in Swaziland where, as is well-known, the education situation is very bad indeed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is Colonial Development and Welfare Fund money now available which should be used to help private schools which were started because of lack of Government schools? Will not he do something to improve education there generally?

Mr. Braine: I do not accept the implications in what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We agreed as recently as February to substantial rises in the salaries of teachers. In addition, a new teachers' training college built with Colonial Development and Welfare Fund money is to be opened early next year. It will enable us to train twice as many teachers as are trained at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

Administration

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his plans for the Protectorates of Swaziland, Bechuanaland and Basutoland, in view of South Africa's departure from the Commonwealth and the need for United Kingdom responsibilities to be exercised independently of the Union Government.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am at present studying the effects on the High Commission Territories of South Africa's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. This study will take a little while. I do not, of course, accept the implication in the question that the

United Kingdom's responsibilities have not hitherto been exercised independently.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great importance of transferring the administrative capital of Bechuanaland into the Protectorate? Is he aware of the importance of having a separate Commissioner appointed to administer the three Protectorates apart from our diplomatic representation with Dr. Verwoerd? Is he also aware of the urgency of pressing ahead with the implementation of the Morse proposals for economic development?

Mr. Sandys: I am, of course, aware of all those matters.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that the Ambassador to the Union will be responsible in future for these Territories?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I said anything of the sort.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long he is likely to take with this? Surely it is not a very difficult problem to decide whether an Ambassador should continue to look after these territories or a separate High Commissioner or Governor or whatever he is called in the Territories themselves?

Mr. Sandys: There are quite a lot of questions connected with High Commission Territories—

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman is not answering any.

Mr. Sandys: They are questions which have to be studied to some extent together, but I may have something to say on this point in the course of the debate on Monday.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Commonwealth Technical Training Week

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he intends to take, in consultation with other Commonwealth Territories, to collect and publish information gained as a result of Commonwealth Technical Training


Week; and whether he will consider the possibility of some form of continuing organisation for this purpose.

Mr. Braine: These are matters for the Central Advisory Committee upon which Commonwealth countries are jointly represented by the High Commissioner for Australia and this country by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I will arrange for the hon. Member's suggestion to be conveyed to the Committee.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that technical education and training are so important in every part of the Commonwealth that it is worth while trying to follow up any promising ideas or experiences in any part of it?

Mr. Braine: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member and I am glad that he has raised this matter in this way today.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Constitution

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what arrangements he is making for a referendum of the African population of Southern Rhodesia with regard to the proposed new constitution for the Colony, in view of Her Majesty's Government's responsibility with regard to the African people, the latter's concern that the protective powers be retained, and the need for constitutional advance to be generally agreed.

Mr. Sandys: It is not for me to arrange referendums in Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the African people in Southern Rhodesia look upon this country as the protecting Power and that they regard the protective clauses in the Constitution as their safeguard against exploitation by the tiny white minority in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is very important for them. In view of this, why is the referendum to be conducted among that 3 per cent. of the population which happens to be on the electoral roll and which is a percentage almost wholly white? Why cannot the African population who are greatly concerned about these proposed changes be consulted?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member has asked me a lot of questions at the same

time. First, I recognise, of course, our responsibility to ensure that the powers at present reserved to the Government in the United Kingdom are not dropped unless we are satisfied that equally effective or more effective safeguards can be put in their place. That is why the proposals for the new constitution include a provision for a Declaration of Rights, a Constitutional Council and a right of appeal to the Privy Council. This particular referendum is no concern of mine. I cannot decide that there should be a referendum among Europeans, or the existing electorate. That is a matter that is decided out there. I am fully satisfied that most Africans would be very sorry indeed to lose the substantial advances that the new Constitution offers to them.

Mr. Marquand: As the right hon. Gentleman was president of the Constitutional Conference, has not he taken steps, albeit informally, to ensure that there is ample opportunity to consult African opinion about these proposals?

Mr. Sandys: That was the purpose of the Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education how many projects for comprehensive schools he has approved since he took office, how many such projects he has rejected, and in what areas, respectively.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I have approved twenty-nine proposals and rejected four. I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information, but now that he and his Department are beginning to abandon their doctrinaire opposition to comprehensive schools, and more and more local authorities, whatever their political complexion, are considering the advantages of these schools, would not he agree to the suggestion, which I made some time ago, that he issue a document for the guidance of local authorities, describing and explaining the nature of the different types of comprehensive school which are now in operation?

Sir D. Eccles: The guidance is there in the White Paper of 1958. The hon. Member may like to know that in the same period I have approved 460 other types of secondary school, including 57 grammar schools. None the less, I am in favour of reasonable experiments.

Mr. Willey: There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to be too modest about his change of mind, but in view of the Crowther Report and the widespread interest in comprehensive school education, will he consider issuing a White Paper, or perhaps a chapter in the Annual Report, giving a record of the achievements of different types of schools?

Sir D. Eccles: I will consider that suggestion for the Annual Report, but the hon. Member would be wrong to think that I have changed my mind. It is exactly the same now as it was when I was previously Minister of Education.

Mrs. White: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a great many schools may be called comprehensive but are not comprehensive because they have to compete with selective grammar schools in that category?

Sir D. Eccles: That is a matter of looking at each school in turn.

The following are the details:


PROPOSALS UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE EDUCATION ACT, 1944 FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIKELY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS COMPREHENSIVE, CONSIDERED BY THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION BETWEEN 14TH OCTOBER, 1959 AND 13TH APRIL, 1961


England

Approved
Rejected


Counties





Cumberland
…
1
—


Derbyshire
…
—
1


Herefordshire
…
—
1


Lancashire
…
1
—


London
…
7
—


Middlesex
…
—
1


Nottinghamshire
…
1
—


Staffordshire
…
1
—


Westmorland
…
2
—


County Boroughs
…




Yorkshire (West Riding)
…
3
—


Bradford
…
1
—


Coventry
…
1
—


Kingston-upon-Hull
…
1
—


Leeds
…
1
—


Liverpool
…
4
1


Newcastle upon Tyne
…
1
—


Sheffield
…
1
—


Walsall
…
1
—


Wales
…




Brecon
…
1
—


Glamorgan
…
1
—



…
29
4

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Mau Mau Activities

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many per sons have been convicted in Kenya since 1st January, 1961, on the charge of assisting in the management of an un lawful society in connection with Mau Mau activities.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Two, Sir, but in both cases the offence originated in 1960.

Mr. Turton: In view of the fact that there is evidence that the Kenya Freedom Party is being organised as a successor to Mau Mau, and that there is oath-taking in many parts of the country, is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient proceedings are being taken?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir. I am convinced that the police and the Special Branch are taking every necessary step to deal with secret societies.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH CAMEROONS

Constitution

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in constitutional discussions between the Government of the South Cameroons and the Government of the Cameroun Republic the official opposition in the South Cameroons is represented.

Mr. H. Fraser: Discussions on the detailed constitutional arrangements for the unification of the Southern Cameroons with the Cameroun Republic have yet to be held. The arrangements for the discussions will have to be worked out in consultation with the authorities of the Cameroun Republic. I hope that means will be found of associating the official Opposition in the Southern Cameroons with the discussions at an appropriate stage.

Mr. Tilney: Am I right in saying that, in the preliminary discussions at Yaounde last month between the Government of the ex-British South Cameroons and the Government of the Cameroun Republic, the Opposition was not represented?

Mr. Fraser: The opposition was not represented, but these were preliminary


discussions. The main discussions will take place after a decision has been reached in the United Nations on the outcome of the referendum.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, while the United Kingdom remains the administering power for the trusteeship territory of the South Cameroons, he will ensure that there is a general election in the territory so that the will of the people can be made known, before the details of any constitutional agreement with the Cameroun Republic are ratified.

Mr. H. Fraser: We must await the conclusion of the current discussions in the United Nations on the future of the Southern Cameroons before considering what detailed steps will be necessary and practicable to implement the result of the plebiscite.

Mr. Tilney: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Opposition is in a minority of only one in the house of Representatives in the South Cameroons? Would it not be better, before a method of integration into the Cameroun Republic is settled, that the will of the people should be made known?

Mr. Fraser: We shall certainly bear what my hon. Friend says in mind, but, of course, these are complex questions. There are many imponderables before we can come to a decision on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA AND NETHERLANDS (WEST IRIAN)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister what official discussions he had with President Kennedy regarding the use of British and American troops and provision of facilities in the dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands about the future of West Irian.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 13th April, he does not wish to go beyond what he then said about the substance of his talks with President Kennedy.

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the desire of many of us that action should be taken to prevent hostilities between Indonesia and the Netherlands Government on this issue, and our desire for an assurance that British troops and arms will not be used if a conflict develops?

Mr. Butler: In answer to the latter part of the Question, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has told the House that the Government have accepted no commitment to give military support to the Netherlands Government protecting their territory in Netherlands New Guinea. No such question therefore arises. The only assurance I can give is that if there were any such intention—which I have already denied—we should naturally keep Parliament informed.
I will keep my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed of the wishes of the House in this matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is this the right way to handle this matter? Is not the right way for it to be considered by the Security Council if there is the slightest danger of any conflict?

Mr. Butler: No such eventuality arises at present, but no doubt that would be the right method of dealing with it if it did.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (SITUATION)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Kennedy on joint Anglo-American action, through the United Nations or otherwise, in respect of the Cuban situation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 13th April, he does not wish to go beyond what he then said about the substance of his talks with President Kennedy.

Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will not do in a serious matter of this kind? May we have an assurance that any further advice offered by the British Government to President Kennedy will be totally


different from that given by the noble Lord the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Viscount Lambton), who wants to see the Americans intervene in Cuba with full force in order to ensure the success of the invasion?
Now that the first attack appears to have failed, will the British Government advise President Kennedy to do as they did after Suez, and withdraw before it is too late, before he burns his own fingers and perhaps sets the world alight in the process?

Mr. Butler: First, I cannot possibly accept the hypothesis on which the hon. Member's question is based. Secondly, I am not aware that any such advice has been given, or, indeed, is to be given. I am aware that the matter is before the United Nations, and that is the best place in which to handle it.

Mr. M. Foot: Is it not a fact that the British Government have been making statements about their attitude at the United Nations? Should not this House be informed of any conversations and discussions which may have taken place between the British and United States Governments prior to these tragic and terrible events?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the best service that we could have given to the Americans as our allies was to have warned them beforehand of the consequences which might follow from the act of folly and crime on which they were embarking?

Mr. Butler: Again, that is a presupposition of the situation which we cannot accept. Nor can we accept the hypothesis on which the hon. Member has based his question. If he wishes to hear the latest view of the British Government, it was stated yesterday in the Political Committee of the United Nations by Sir Patrick Dean—that the resolution put forward by the representatives of the Argentine and six other Latin-American countries offers the best chance of reaching a peaceful solution of this matter.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is also another resolution before the Political Committee, in the name of Mexico, which calls on all countries to refuse to give help in any form to this invasion and

interference in the internal affairs of another country? Is not the Latin-American resolution purely a face-saving device for the United States? Will he not, therefore, convey to the Prime Minister the views of many of us that the right course for Britain in this dispute is to warn the United States that if she becomes embroiled any further we shall dissociate ourselves publicly from her action?

Mr. Butler: I have studied the resolutions before the United Nations. They are in the form of a Roumanian draft resolution and a Mexican resolution. The difficulty about the Mexican resolution is that it does not even mention the Organisation of American States, and Her Majesty's Government attach special importance to their coming into resolving this matter. That is why, among other reasons, we support the resolution put forward by the Argentine and six other Latin-American countries.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not extremely difficult for the United Nations, or for anybody else, to come to a sensible conclusion on this matter without knowing more of the facts of the situation? In those circumstances, would not the appropriate thing for the United Nations to do be to conduct an inquiry into the matter so that it could be properly informed?

Mr. Butler: That is a matter for the United Nations. I cannot add to the statements of the American Government, by President Kennedy, and later by Mr. Dean Rusk on 17th April, because I cannot speak for the United States Government.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United Nations is not notorious, nor even notable, for establishing facts?

Mr. S. Silverman: While what the right hon. Gentleman says about the United Nations being the proper place for handling the situation is no doubt true, is it not equally true that Her Majesty's Government are responsible to Parliament for what they do at the United Nations, and would it not be a very good idea for the cloak of secrecy and silence to be lifted and for the House to be at least informed, if not consulted, about what the Government


do about these events, which are fraught with so much danger to the peace of the world?

Mr. Butler: It so happens that Sir Patrick Dean's remarks are fully reported in today's Press, and that is the best way of ascertaining the view of Her Majesty's Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
At seven o'clock, the following Government business will be considered:
Second Reading of the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Consideration of the Motions relating to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Orders.
TUESDAY, 25TH APRIL—Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.
Second Reading of the Department of Technical Co-operation Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Report and Third Reading of the Hyde Park (Underground Parking) Bill; and of the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 26TH APRIL—Conclusion of the Recommittal stage of the Land Drainage Bill, and progress with the remaining stages.
THURSDAY, 27TH APRIL—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate will take place on the Operation of the Government's New Pension Scheme, until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, opposed Private Business will be taken.
The Chairman of Ways and Means informs me that he proposes to set down the Trunk Pipelines Bill for Second Reading at seven o'clock on that evening.
FRIDAY, 28TH APRIL—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 1ST MAY the proposed business will be: Second Reading of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages of the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the shipbuilding industry as a whole, particularly in the light of the Dunnett Report, which has been published this morning? Will he also take note that the Opposition will wish to discuss education and agriculture before long?

Mr. Butler: I will note those requests by the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps we can discuss them.

Mr. Fell: Can my right hon. Friend help me? I note that we are to have the liberal allowance of three hours to discuss the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Cannot my right hon. Friend somehow find more time for that Bill? If not, will he at least make certain that at any rate his own Front Bench practises a very strict self-denying ordinance, and that Government speakers do not speak for more than ten minutes, because they have nothing to say anyway? It would be far better if we were to have a proper debate on this tragic and most important matter.

Mr. Butler: I will endeavour to discuss the question of that ordinance with my right hon. Friends principally concerned. I think that we should have time, but I will bear my hon. Friend's observations in mind.

Mr. Jay: Can the Leader of the House say why we are not to have the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill next week? Have the Government now abandoned this important Bill?

Mr. Butler: The main reason is that we cannot do everything at once.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of the difficulty at Question Time of discussing foreign affairs by Question and Answer, thus not getting all the information and views which we would like, is it not time that


my right hon. Friend found time for a debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Butler: I can only note my hon. Friend's request and discuss it with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Marquand: While the right hon. Gentleman is bearing in mind the representations made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), will he not agree that to give only three hours to the Second Reading of the South Africa Bill is most unsatisfactory, unless he provides reasonable time for the Committee stage and does not expect it to go through formally on the Monday of the following week?

Mr. Butler: I will pay attention to what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I think that we should have time to transact the later stages of the Bill. Most of the issues will arise in the general debate rather than in the particular.

Sir T. Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we have not had a foreign affairs debate since last December, and that many important things are happening in the world? While appreciating that he is in some difficulty over this matter, as this is a House of Commons issue, is it not possible that the Opposition will be willing to provide a Supply day?

Mr. Butler: I will draw that to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and he may reply.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this as well as on that side of the House there is a great desire that more time should be given to the South Africa Bill? Is he not aware that to attempt to pass a Second Reading with two other items of business on Monday, and to have a Committee stage on a day when there are other items, is to ignore the very wide desire for a thorough discussion of the Bill?

Mr. Butler: I try to transact business in as reasonable a way as possible. Last night the Government provided extra time for a discussion of a Prayer. We try to find time when it is requested. The two later items after the Second Reading debate are not very controversial and should not take very much

time, so that most of the time should be given to the Second Reading. However, I will look into the matter.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take up what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition about a debate on the report on the shipbuilding industry and see whether that debate could not be widened to cover shipping as well as shipbuilding, two subjects which are practically never discussed in the House although they are of paramount importance in our economy? Will he assure the House that there will be a chance of debating shipping and shipbuilding matters?
Secondly, to sustain what has been said about the debate on the South Africa Bill, is it not perfectly obvious to my right hon. Friend that African affairs are of paramount importance in the affairs of the Government and that not just South Africa, but the affairs of Kenya as well, concern many people, especially at this time?

Mr. Butler: The latter question is one upon which the Chair would have to adjudicate, but the Bill deals with the Republic of South Africa, and, while I do not doubt the importance of the points raised by my hon. Friend, I presume that we shall have to keep in order in the debate on the Bill.
I would be glad to attach shipping to shipbuilding in the consideration of the request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), with his knowledge of the North-East Coast; and I would like to have a word with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Castle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his promise to give more consideration to the South Africa Bill. To encourage him to reach the right conclusion, may I stress again how many hon. Members on this side of the House are anxious to take part in the debate on Second Reading and how wide and detailed are the issues involved, and to urge him most seriously to meet our request?

Mr. Butler: Part of the difficulty arises from the great generosity of the Administration and the Leader of the


House in giving time for Private Business up to seven o'clock, otherwise we could have had a whole day, but I will pay attention to what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Shinwell: In case there should be any misunderstanding, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we discuss the North Atlantic Shipping Bill we may discuss—with respect to you, Mr. Speaker—the question of shipping generally?

Mr. Butler: I should certainly hope that that would come very much into the debate.

Mr. McMaster: May I add to what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and many hon. Members on this side of the House, representing not only the North-East Coast and the Clyde, but also Northern Ireland, have said, and press my right hon. Friend for an early debate on shipping?

Mr. Snow: May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of Questions which have been put to Ministers in recent weeks concerning the rather sad plight of the Sudan Government British pensioners, and whether he will take note of the feeling among many hon. Members that these men are the victims of an historical accident whereby the British Government are not wholly responsible for their welfare in their retirement? Will he consider a modest debate on this subject?

Mr. Butler: I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend principally concerned, and perhaps discuss it, also, with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tilney: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the Opposition the possibility of a debate for, say, half a Supply day not only on the Sudan pensions position, but on the pensions of those who have served the Crown either directly or indirectly overseas?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly take that into account as well.

Mr. Dugdale: Whatever he may have thought to the contrary, may I remind

the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee stage of the South Africa Bill will certainly not be a mere formality?

Mr. Butler: Yes, I will note that.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the many requests for a debate, may I ask my right hon. Friend to inform the House how many days the Government will find for debate? Is it always essential that the decision as to what we debate should come from the Opposition? Can we not have some Government days so that we can debate certain matters?

Mr. Butler: The classical procedure of the House, which has been sanctified by many years' observance, is that on Supply days the time is chosen by the Opposition. That takes up many of our days. On many occasions the Government have given time for important debates, including, at the end of March, a debate on South Africa. The Government will always listen to any reasonable request for time, consistent with the rather extensive programme which we have.

Mr. M. Foot: Reverting to the answers which the right hon. Gentleman gave earlier about the attempted invasion of Cuba, would he not agree that the situation may be extremely grave and may call for a debate in the next few days? If the Government cannot find their voice to say something adequate about the situation, is it not all the more necessary that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of doing so?

Mr. Butler: Yes, but I think that we must see how the situation develops. It may be that it will develop in such a way that a debate will not be so important.

Sir T. Moore: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been called to the frequent comments in the Press of late about the ageing groups of the Opposition, and to a lesser degree, of hon. Members on this side of the House? Will he remember what I said the other night, that the mental equipment of hon. Members grows increasingly less as the hours grow older? Will he therefore consider having the South Africa Bill brought in on another day, when we can have a complete day to discuss it and when our mental equipment is brighter?

Mr. Butler: It always seems to me that the mental equipment of my hon. Friend


is about the same. I am sure that he will make a good showing at that hour.

Mr. McInnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ten weeks ago I asked him to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland with a view to introducing legislation following the Guest Committee's Report? Will he tell us the result of his consultations?

Mr. Butler: I think that it is common sense to say that it is very unlikely that any fresh legislation will be introduced, because I think that at present we have quite enough.

Mr. Zilliacus: Reverting to the matter of a foreign affairs debate, are not the forthcoming N.A.T.O. Conference in Oslo and the recent developments, with their potentialities, in Laos and Cuba, reasons for having such a debate at an early date?

Mr. Butler: I will make a note of that.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the pressure from the benches behind him to provide more time for a specific debate is a little hypocritical? Is he not aware that hon. Members opposite, a fortnight ago, voted for a longer Easter Recess than we on this side wanted? Would not the right hon. Gentleman be in a happier position if his right hon. and hon. Friends thought as much about Government business and about getting it through as we do?

Mr. Butler: This is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr. Rankin: Reverting to the question of time for a debate on shipbuilding, is it not the case that the subcommittee which reported yesterday on

this question of shipbuilding was appointed by the Government and was the outcome of Government action? Therefore, should not the time to debate its report be provided by the Government?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of what the hon. Member has said in the first part of his question.

Mr. Hector Hughes: From the exchanges which have taken place on business today, it may appear to the Leader of the House that shipbuilding and shipping are English interests only. I should like to draw attention to the fact that they are also Scottish interests, and I join hon. Members opposite in asking for more time to debate the twin subjects of shipping and shipbuilding.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (ALLOWANCES)

Bill to provide for a amendment of the conditions giving entitlement to payment of certain allowances to members of bodies to which Part VI of the Local Government Act, 1948, applies, and to members of certain bodies constituted under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, and to payment of travelling allowances to justices of the peace and members of probation and other committees constituted under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948; and for matters connected therewith, presented by Mr. Reynolds; supported by Mr. John McCann, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Donald Wade, Mr. Robert Jenkins, and Mr. Manuel; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee [Progress 19th April].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

Question again proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.

Orders of the Day — BUDGET RESOLUTIONS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: We now come to the fourth and last day of the debate on the Budget Resolutions. The Budget is now looking somewhat battered and the Government Front Bench a little bewildered about the unfavourable reception which the Chancellor's proposals have had. They should not be surprised, because more taxes were put on than were taken off, and those that were taken off benefited only 300,000 people—and for them the delights of tax relief are deferred.
The clarity of the Chancellor's Budget statement, the attractiveness of its delivery and the sincerity and seriousness of his purpose were vitiated by the proposal that he made, last of all, to give enormous cuts in Surtax, ranging up to £34 a week. Up to that point his Budget proposals sounded plausible, if not convincing. But few people believe that this latest example of how much the Conservatives care has anything to do with exports and few believe that it has anything to do with incentives, either, although one of my right hon. Friends said, yesterday, that he wondered whether the poor speech delivered by the Economic Secretary was due to the high level of taxation, and what a pity it was that we should have to wait until 1963 for a better one.
One of the poorer parts of the Economic Secretary's speech was that which related to Income Tax reductions during the last ten years, when he was comparing money with money instead of making allowance for the change in the value of money over the last decade. A truer comparison is to be found in the Written Answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 20th March, 1951. I will not dwell on that, but any hon. Members who may have heard the Economic Secretary, or read what he said, should not take his comparisons as valid ones without looking at the table in that Written Answer.
There are also serious misgivings on both sides of industry about the two economic regulators proposed by the Chancellor, and especially the payroll tax, Which many workers rightly regard as having sinister possibilities. There is one interesting possibility about the payroll tax. I understand that, if the time comes, the Government will tax themselves as employers. Presumably they will then introduce a Supplementary Estimate to find the money. Could there be anything more cynical than that?
Furthermore, if the Government had introduced one Budget—as they should have done—instead of two, at what point in the Chancellor's statement, and with what a guilty look, would he have introduced the prescription charges and the National Health Service contributions? Would it have been before or after his Surtax proposals? Would it have been as a boost for exports, or as an incentive to higher production? In February, we said that the increased welfare charges, amounting to as much as £40 million or £50 million, should have been included in the Budget. We were right.
In November, we sounded a warning that after the taxes on the sick, the aged, and the infirm would come a top hat Budget. We were right. This has happened before. In 1957, when the Government introduced the first separate National Health Service contribution, £40 million in tax reliefs were given to those solely within the Surtax range, and for precisely the same reasons that the Chancellor gave on Monday.
But there is something else. In 1959, the National Insurance Act, with its graduated contribution, handed the


Chancellor a promissory note for £100 million in extra revenue this year. This is now being honoured, and the money is flowing in. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the only Chancellor who has had such a large slice of additional revenue handed to him on a plate before he opened his Budget. These preliminary revenue-raisers are bringing him no less than £300 million extra this year, and this large sum consists of Health Service contributions, prescription charges and National Insurance graduated contributions, out of which no graduated benefits will be paid.
I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor is wondering about this figure. I took it from a speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 16th March this year. These extra taxes had been slapped on the mass of the people before the Chancellor rose on Monday and announced an £83 million tax relief for 300,000 Surtax payers, which is an average of £276 in tax relief a year for 300,000 people. That is £56s. a week, which is 14s. 6d. a week more than we pay 5½ million old people to live on.
I have nothing against Surtax payers. Many of them are merely working men who are earning more than most working men. It is perhaps not a good thing that Surtax payers are in a class apart. It would be better if there were a single progressive tax instead of two taxes, and I hope that the Chancellor will apply his mind to that solution. But the Committee must admit that for the purposes of this debate we are bound to refer to Surtax payers because they are in a class apart, and they are the ones who are getting the tax reliefs.
They are the better-off people; there is no doubt about that. They are the economic and social "top brass" of Britain. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee would agree that those who are working at anything worth while deserve to be encouraged, but what does it profit industry if skilled workers, technicians, foremen and supervisors lose that incentive which management is supposed to gain from the Budget? Why are they left out? There are many heavy tax burdens on those below the Surtax level, despite the reliefs which have been given in the last ten years. There has been no change in the main personal allowances since 1955.
In 1959, the then Chancellor said that it was the turn of the standard rate, and last year, when we were pressing upon him improvements in personal reliefs, he said that nothing substantial was possible in the circumstances of last year, and that the most he could do was to improve the housekeeper allowance and introduce a small new relief for widows the widowers, with children, who did not employ resident housekeepers. This year, when, in normal conditions, we might have expected that it would be the turn of personal allowances, we find that it is the turn of the Surtax payers. I wish that I was as happy about the spirit and morale of the workers under this Government as I am about that of management. That point is worth study in connection with Britain's performance in the export trade, and in the rather sluggish growth in our economy.
I would favour some relief in Surtax—though not on the present extravagant scale—at the same time as reliefs further down the scale. But when Surtax relief is chosen as the principal and, indeed, almost the sole tax reduction in a counter-inflationary Budget, it has to be justified on economic grounds, for it has no budgetary purpose whatsoever. On the contrary, this tax reduction subtracts from the surplus which the Chancellor wants, and to make room for it he has had to introduce compensating additions to taxation.
In more favourable economic circumstances, when relaxation rather than stringency was the keynote of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's review, some Surtax relief could be justified as an act of fiscal, if not of social, justice; but not now. We cannot, in these debates, be concerned, in the context of this Budget, with what Surtax payers would like, or with what their spokesmen and propagandists say they ought to have. Other people would like something too, but they are just not getting it. They have to pay more for their insurance stamps, and now they must nay more for their motor cycles and small cars.
We are concerned, in this Budget, with what should be done for the benefit of the nation's prosperity, with especial emphasis on exports, and every concession on the grand scale must pass the test of economic necessity, not of equity. Equity in this Budget is not enough. It is no excuse to say that industry will


pay for it. That is not true. We shall all pay for it. In any case, why should industry pay for substantial salary increases, because that is what these Surtax rates are, in effect, to people not even in their employ?
It would be interesting for the Committee to see an occupational classification of the Surtax payers who will benefit. How many doctors, lawyers, civil servants, bank and insurance officials, local government officers, stockbrokers, publicans, shopkeepers and ice-cream vendors are there in this? How many exporters, importers, property sharks and parasites will get relief in this Budget?
What is all this about the disincentives of high personal taxation? This matter has been referred to in many speeches in the course of this week's debates. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) yesterday quoted the report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. The Royal Commission reached its conclusions before the last reduction of 9d. in the standard rate was made in 1959 and before the substantial extension of earned income relief into the Surtax range in 1957.
I shall bring additional evidence to bear on this question, because it is important that we get this clear. The Tory philosophy rests upon the doubtful and insulting assumption that the acquisition of more and more wealth and material things is the mainspring of human endeavour. It is not, and there is abundant evidence throughout our society that it is not. To the evidence adduced by my hon. and learned Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) I will add one piece more. I refer to a paper published in the British Tax Review of June, 1957, by Professor George Break, a Canadian, who undertook a survey of the effects of taxation on incentives in the latter part of 1955 and the first six months of 1956. That is almost the same period which the Royal Commission covered.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are certain that the disincentive effects of taxation do not apply to them might like to read Professor Break's conclusions on what effect it has on the other fellow. This study deals with those getting above £1,500 a year, two-thirds of them within

the Surtax range. I will not trouble the Committee with any long extracts from Professor Break's paper. I will merely read the final sentence:
Whatever may be the important causes behind Britain's post-war economic difficulties, a lack of incentives to work because of high income taxation does not appear to one of them".
For almost every person he found who was discouraged by the high level of taxation he found another who was stimulated by the desire for a bigger income owing to the erosion of taxation on the income he had. Some were striving for more because they wanted more. Others were discouraged by high taxation. He found that the striving group was somewhat bigger than the dismal group. Anyhow, the paper, with its detailed analysis of the survey, is worth reading.
Before leaving the subject of Surtax I want to make two more comments. Forty-eight thousand Surtax payers, or 15 per cent. of the whole, pay less than £20 a year in Surtax. One-third, or 120,000, pay less than £50 in Surtax. One half, or 185,000, pay less than £100. Does any hon. Member opposite care to make an estimate of the economic value of incentives of less than £20, £50, or even £100 a year in this salary range? The truth is that the really heavy burden of Surtax on earned incomes is concentrated upon about 17,000 people earning over £6,000 a year. It is on them that the Chancellor builds such high hopes of greater endeavour, greater efficiency and the boost to our export trade.
With so much confusion in the newspapers about the real effect of these proposals it is worth while pointing out, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, that the effect of the reduction of total income by the allowances set off against earned income will bring benefits to unearned income. Since the allowances are to be subtracted from total income to produce a net taxable income, unearned income will be pulled from a higher bracket to a lower bracket by that change, and unearned income will benefit in many cases. Therefore, it will not be confined to earned income, as many people have supposed

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that men who have made savings and have their own small income, perhaps


not large enough to retire on, will now have an incentive to work? They and their wives also will have a better incentive to earn money.

Mr. Houghton: I have given up wondering about whether anything will make people work more. The combined operation of allowances from earned income and the benefit they will bring on total income will undoubtedly assist many people to escape the higher level of taxation on unearned income.
I turn now to the comment made by the Economic Secretary, and, I believe, by others, in mitigation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals I suppose, that they will not come into operation until 1963. What difference does that make? We are asked to commit ourselves to these reductions in this year's Finance Bill. Parliament will be committed to these reductions two years ahead, without even knowing the state of the economy when they will come about. That is a forward commitment which has rarely been made in the past to any class of taxpayer. It is a very important commitment.
In the meantime, since the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) is here, I will say that never before has so much been expected of so few. The Chancellor of the Exchequer builds extravagant hopes upon the effect of these tax reductions on a very limited number of people. Surtax payers are now on trial. The Government tell us that the top management in Britain is suffering from an industrial disease attributable to high taxation, whereas the medical adviser to the Institute of Directors tell us that it is high blood pressure, that they over-eat, drink too much, and do not get enough sleep in the afternoons. He has given them very sound advice on how to reduce the working day. The 40-hour week asked for by the railwaymen is hard labour compared with the number of hours that the medical adviser to the Institute of Directors suggests it is safe for business tycoons to work.
Anyhow, whether it is high taxation or high blood pressure, the cure apparently lies in these Surtax reliefs. The Chancellor should now let it go forth from him that he expects the 17,000 people who are to get the main part of the Surtax reliefs to pull their socks up,

look after their health, get in trim and get cracking, because much is expected of them. At the same time, he should say that if they fail him he will restore the cuts he is making in Surtax.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The Chancellor is asleep.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Listening to this, does anyone wonder?

Mr. Houghton: The Chancellor was trying to get rid of distractions in order to concentrate on what I was saying.
The President of the Board of Trade, in his speech the other day, asked plaintively: what else can we do? What more can the Government do to assist? When I listened to that the thought went through my mind, can it be that private enterprise is failing the nation? Is that the painful conclusion to which the Government will shortly have to come? If people can make a good thing out of selling at home, why should they exert themselves to sell abroad? There is not any patriotism—or not much—in business. How do we, in a so-called free society, persuade firms to make a drive for exports if they do not want to do so?
Suppose capitalism in Britain is not sufficiently interested in expansion. Suppose it does not care tuppence about doubling the standard of life in the next twenty-five years. What are we to do then? If the Surtax cuts do not do it, what else? How do we get the results we want if the monetary rewards in an acquisitive society fail in their appeal and we have nothing to put in their place?
I believe that in the present structure of society in Britain, with its class distinctions becoming more marked every year—and this Budget adds to them—there is literally no appeal to devoted and disinterested service to the nation. The whole body politic is infected with the itch for more and still more on the easiest terms possible.

Sir K. Pickthorn: Especially Members of Parliament.

Mr. Houghton: This I feel very strongly, yet sorrowfully, is where the Communist countries will win in the end.
Now I want to consider the Chancellor's timid approach to capital gains and business expenses. The taxing of capital gains has, in principle, ceased, or almost


ceased, to be a party matter. There are people in favour of it in both parties. It has become largely a matter of practical administration and yield. I ask the Chancellor not to underestimate the effect of the get-rich-quick stories in the Press on the minds of men and women who work hard, very hard, for a modest living. I wish that the Chancellor—and the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) for that matter—were not so complacent about the powers already possessed by the Inland Revenue to tax profits under Schedule D. They are manifestly inadequate.
The Committee and the country are entitled to know the truth about the taxation or otherwise of those making huge profits out of transactions which, on technical grounds, might fall outside the scope of a tax on income. The Chancellor says, "On which side of the line particular cases fall is a matter not for me or the Board of Inland Revenue, but a matter to be decided by the independent commissioners of taxes and the courts." That is a regrettable thing to say. He cannot shrug it off like that. On which side of the line particular cases fall depends on whether they are heavily taxed or not taxed at all. Is he not interested in that?
Capital profits are tax-free, but they increase enormously the taxable capacity of those who enjoy them. Their resources are increased and their spending capacity is increased while their obligation to contribute to national revenue is increased accordingly. Therefore, why do we not see to it that they do so? The Chancellor cannot shuffle this off to the commissioners and the courts. They are concerned with interpreting and applying the existing law. What we need is a change in the law. I hope that the Chancellor will regard this as a very important matter for his consideration.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw aside the veil of secrecy behind which all the weaknesses of our tax administration are safely concealed and tell the country? Are the Clores, the Cottons, the Samuels and the Maxwell Josephs and hundreds of smaller fry being taxed on the appreciation of their wealth, or only on the income they get from it? Can we have an answer and be told the truth? My belief is that even the powers that the Inland Revenue

has are not rigorously enough applied for many reasons, possibly because litigation can be threatened on individual cases; because when it comes to the point of whether a particular sum of money is a capital profit or a trading profit it depends upon the circumstances of each case.
Only if we have a capital profits tax can the line of division between income and capital profits be of less significance to the taxpayer and the country than it is today. We ought to know what capital profits are escaping Income Tax. We are entitled to the full story. The great mass of the workers are entitled to know what untaxed contribution they are paying to those who are "on the make" in a big way. These are very serious questions indeed. They go to the heart of the matter. If hon. Members opposite want to know why there is so much grumbling and discontent among the workers, they should know that it is this sort of thing which disillusions them, annoys them, and which, they feel, is clear proof of the unfairness of the present structure of society.
I pass to another scandal. That is business expenses. If ever a Chancellor raised the hopes of my hon. and right hon. Friends and then dashed them very quickly it was this Chancellor on this question last Monday. He said:
"This is an unhealthy feature both on business and social grounds. I ask those concerned most seriously to consider whether some curtailment in the extent and scale of entertainment can be achieved without affecting business efficiency. It is a matter very difficult to deal with by legislation, but I shall review this matter again next year and I do not reject altogether the possibility of legislative action then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 815.]
That was not a very stern threat to those who prefer gluttony to initiative. There is nothing there which I think will cause any perturbation in the board rooms of Britain. This may be difficult to deal with by legislation, but very much more difficult things have been dealt with by legislation, and tax legislation at that. When we reach the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, we shall have some suggestions to put forward. We shall be able to discuss the matter thoroughly again and we shall take the opportunity.
One thing which I think this Committee should frown on is the growing practice of employers of paying salaries


to cover expenses and then leaving the employee to contest with the tax inspector for the biggest net income he can get. The employer says, "Do not trouble me with your travelling, entertainment and hotel expenses; I do not want to see them. If you have any lies to tell, tell them to the Inland Revenue."

Mr. C. Osborne: No, no; that is not fair.

Mr. Houghton: Of course, it is fair. What is the purpose of this practice if it is not to turn the employee on to the Inland Revenue, instead of the employer dealing with legitimate claims for expenses?

Mr. Osborne: That is not a fair comment.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) say whether that applies to Members of Parliament at present?

Mr. C. Pannell: Who is our employer? We have not got one.

Mr. Houghton: I believe that the practice which I am describing is the cause of many dubious claims. When people are carrying out their employer's business, when they are incurring expenses in doing the job, the employer should make satisfactory arrangements for the reimbursement of expenses and not expect the Inland Revenue to do it for him.
The other big question is commercial entertainment, which has reached a pitch of extravagance which should now be sternly discouraged. If the Chancellor wants to know how we would deal with it, I will tell him. We would disallow all entertainment as a business expense charged against taxable profits. If firms want to entertain, let them do it wholly at the expense of the shareholders, and not half or more than half at the expense of the Inland Revenue. The Chancellor has done something about motor cars—

Mr. John Hall: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same principle to the entertainment of people from overseas?

Mr. Houghton: I think that there is a case for differentiation between expenses incurred in connection with exports and

entertainment expenses incurred in connection with home sales, but the bulk of this extravagance has nothing to do with overseas. It is on the home front.
Finally, I want to look at the economic regulators in the general picture of the Budget and the satellite Budgets that went before it. I cannot help feeling that in all these things—the triple budgetary transactions we have seen in the last three years—the Government are out to hit the worker and curb the consumer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, they are. They have decided to attack the level of consumption by attacking those who consume. I believe that, the Government having shown their colours clearly, and more particularly in this Budget, we on this side of the Committee must approach these economic regulators in a spirit of distrust. They certainly need much closer scrutiny. We cannot trust the Government to use them fairly. The power to vary the taxes on tobacco and beer and the Purchase Tax by 10 per cent. either way could bring prices down as well as put them up, but I venture the prophecy that if that regulator is ever used it will be used to put them up.
The payroll tax can work in only one way. It can only go on. I remember the time when the Government put on the petrol tax and later took it off, and then claimed that they were the Government who took off the tax on petrol. They may well do so with the payroll tax, and say, "We are the Government who took off the payroll tax", after having put it on. But what I want to know, and what I hope we shall hear in the course of the debates that we shall have, is what the payroll tax will be for? What will a payroll tax of 2 or 3 per cent. do for the mobility and economy of the use of labour that wages increases of from 3 per cent. to 6 per cent. a year have not already done? It seems to me that this device is more likely to be used to discourage employers from granting wage increases. The Chancellor will take the wage increases out of the pay packets along with P.A.Y.E.
No wonder that the T.U.C. is looking forward to some interesting conversations with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this proposal. I am sorry that I shall not be there, but we on this


side of the Committee must take a long-range look at the Government's proposals, as it is becoming plain that, instead of widening the base of direct and progressive taxation, they are widening and stiffening the base of taxation by contributions and more and higher regressive indirect taxes.
We are not on the way to a property-owning democracy. We are on the way back to a property-dominated society, and if the people of Britain cannot see what is happening it is because they are standing the right way up while the Government are doing most things upside down.

4.26 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), after lecturing us for quite a long time on what was wrong, proceeded in the last few minutes of his speech to make a number of interesting recommendations. The first was that we should disallow the cost of entertainment as an allowable expense. That comes curiously in a debate in which we have been told again and again that we are not making sufficient provisions for helping the export trade, because I think that that measure, of all that might be suggested, is the least helpful to the export trade.
The hon. Member then went on to say that we were attacking consumption by curbing the consumer. How else one could attack consumption he did not explain, but, if he thinks that that is a wrong thing to do, I beg him to read a recent article on economic planning by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), in the New Statesman, where he will find far more drastic suggestions for curbing consumption for future years than any made by the Government in this Budget. The final point I would make with regard to the hon. Gentleman's speech is this. It simply is not true, if one looks at the figures, to say that the Government are engaged in a large-scale transference of the burden from the direct to the indirect taxpayer.
On the contrary, one of the most remarkable figures in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech was

precisely that direct taxation, on the basis of the existing revenue, will yield £398 million more in the coming financial year than in the past. I do not want to make too much of that, but, simply, the figures show that an appreciably bigger proportion of the total burden of taxation will be borne by the direct taxpayer in the next financial year than in the last.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: What about the poll tax?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. and learned Member asks me about what he calls the poll tax. I will tell him. The total sum of the contributions, as the hon. Member for Sowerby rightly said, is going up by £300 million, but that is not all what he calls a regressive poll tax. We are not discussing National Health contributions. We are discussing contributions as a whole, and £200 million out of that £300 million is accounted for by the graduated contributions, and this takes account of differences of income.
I know that a great many hon. Members hope to take part in this debate, and because, to put it mildly, I have more opportunities of speaking in the Committee than most hon. Members, I shall, therefore, confine my own remarks to three subjects only: first, my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget judgment—that is to say, his decision to budget for a revenue surplus, above-the-line, of £506 million; secondly, the new economic regulators; and, thirdly, the Surtax reliefs.
I begin with my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget judgment, and here I think we come across a rather striking feature of this debate. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have indicated that, for reasons which we all understand, they propose to divide the Committee this evening. Yet, compared with almost every other Budget debate that I can remember, there has been strikingly little criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals on what one might term conventional lines. Hardly any right hon. or hon. Gentleman has suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend should have increased taxes by a greater amount, or that he should not have increased them at all. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Huyton, leading off on Tuesday for the Opposition, refused even to consider this question.
We all listened to the more serious portions of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with close attention. I think that everyone in the Committee looks forward to the witticisms of the right hon. Gentleman on these occasions, but there are moments when the right hon. Gentleman seems in danger of becoming the slave of his own talent for epigram. With respect, it is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to dismiss the Budget as "irrelevant" to our economic problems, with a convenient reference to the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855. If the right hon. Gentleman really regards the decision to budget for a revenue surplus of £506 million as irrelevant to our balance of payments prospects, all I can say is that that comes somewhat oddly from so strong a professed admirer of the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
The prospect which faced my right hon. and learned Friend when framing his Budget this year is, I think, well understood by the Committee. It was a prospect, as the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, of
strong expansionary forces working on home demand"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 800.]
and there was a serious risk that, unless they were contained, these expansionary forces would put up costs and affect our exports. In these circumstances, I have no doubt at all that my right hon. and learned Friend was entirely right, having achieved a revenue surplus of £147 million in the last financial year, to aim at a surplus of over £500 million—nearly three-and-a-half times as great—for next year, leaving an overall deficit of only £69 million. In effect, my right hon. and learned Friend has decided this year to hold on to a very large increase in revenue from the proceeds of direct taxation at existing rates. He is fortifying the position still further by a number of increases in indirect taxation.
This very large surplus will benefit the economy in three ways. First, it is designed to strengthen our balance of payments. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his Budget speech, the Budget surplus will be
a substantial factor in moderating the growth of home demand to the extent necessary to make room for increased exports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961: Vol. 638, c. 822.]

Secondly, a large Budget surplus is of particular value at a time like the present, when, as the Committee is well aware, there is an expanding trend in capital investment. Speaking immediately after the Budget statement on Monday, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that manufacturing investment was
now only about at the 1956 level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 841.]
In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman it is true to say that he admitted that he was speaking without checking the figures. But if he, or any other hon. Member, will turn to page 48, Table V, of the Economic Survey, they will find that manufacturing investment in 1960 was running well above its previous peak in 1957; while, according to the figures collected by the Board of Trade, the demand for fixed capital investment in 1961 in the manufacturing sector alone is likely to be about 30 per cent. above what it was in 1960.
All of us in this Committee welcome this increase in investment, and we all recognise its very great importance to the future growth of our economy. But experience also shows us—this is true of Governments of every kind—that firm budgetary measures are essential to make room in our economy for an upsurge of capital spending. In this connection, a large revenue surplus and a very small overall deficit will help in two ways. The large revenue surplus will help to leave room in our economy for the increase in investment by holding down the level of consumption, and the very small overall deficit will mean that practically the whole of private saving will remain available to finance investment in the private sector.
Finally, a very small overall deficit will mean, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that
we shall not, if things go as we expect, be looking for new money from the gilt-edged market in the financial year 1961–62."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 822.]
This means, first, that the Government are well in command of the monetary situation and, secondly—this is a point the importance of which none of us should under-rate—that the gilt-edged investor can very well face the months ahead with just a little more confidence.
In short, whether one judges the Budget by its likely effect on our balnace of payments, its effect on our abilities to support a rising level of investment, or its effect on the monetary situation, my right hon. and learned Friend has shown clearly that he intends to use this Budget as the chief instrument of his economic policy at the present time. He demonstrated clearly, not only to this Committee and the country, but to the world outside, that the Government intend to pursue a policy of expansion on a thoroughly sound financial basis.

Mr. Mitchison: What about the Bank Rate?

Sir E. Boyle: I am coming to that.
I am now passing on to the regulators. Here, of course, we are dealing with a problem which affects not only the United Kingdom, but a great many other countries in the Western world as well.
The problem is that an economy which is predominantly a free enterprise economy does not automatically steer itself into equilibrium. There has to be a considerable measure of intervention by the central Government, in conjunction with the financial authorities, if such an economy is to achieve a balance between the total of its productive resources and the monetary claims upon them. I think that it is fairly widely accepted in the Committee that, in the words of the Budget speech, we need
further means of stimulating or restricting the economy, by measures which can be brought into operation quickly at any time of the year, and the effect of which will be reasonably rapid and widespread."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 805.]
Let me make it clear, especially in view of the intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that the Government certainly do not propose to abandon the monetary methods of regulating the economy which have been a predominant feature of their policy ever since 1951. And, of course, not a feature of the present Government alone. This has been true in many parts of the Western world. There has been considerably more active use of the interest rate policy in the 1950s. I think, for example, that it would be rash to say that we should

never make use of hire-purchase control as a means of influencing demand—if only for a rather important economic reason, namely, that the consumer durable industries are large consumers of metals and, therefore, compete for the same resources which are also needed for home investment and exports. I can recall very well the days of 1956, when I was at the Treasury, when we were importing quantities of steel to meet the demand of the metal-using industries and we had no option but to use the hire-purchase control drastically, although I know there were parts of the country which were considerably affected as a result.
Nevertheless, I think that it is clear that there are a number of disadvantages in relying overmuch on monetary measures to regulate the economy. In the first place, they do not operate evenly over the whole field. Hire-purchase controls bear with particular severity on a few industries which complain, with some justice, that they are bearing too much of the brunt of the corrective action which is needed.
In the same way, it would obviously be wrong to put too much of the brunt on our banking system, especially when writers like Professor Sayers point out—though perhaps one cannot go all the way with him—that the banking system is by no means the only source whereby credit can be obtained.
The second objection to overmuch reliance on monetary instruments, which we should by no means underestimate, is that the level of Bank Rate is not just a simple domestic concern. I think that we are all agreed that the free nations of the Western world should aim at greater co-operation in trade and payments policies. They may very well have to learn to co-operate more closely in their interest rate policies as well.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, monetary instruments, with the exception of hire-purchase controls, have the disadvantage that, carried beyond a certain point, they operate more on investment demand than on consumer demand. It is fairly generally accepted nowadays that a rising level of productive investment and a constant exploitation of new techniques are essential if Britain is to earn her living in a highly competitive world and is to enjoy that


greater range of freedom of opportunity that comes from higher living standards. This is a very strong argument for attempting to regulate the economy not by monetary means alone, but by a combination of monetary and fiscal measures.
The main fiscal regulator is, of course, the annual Budget, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), in his admirable speech two nights ago, say that in his view the Budget ought to remain the main instrument of economic policy. But it is impossible to forecast, at the time of the April Budget, precisely how the economy will develop during the coming twelve months. I should have thought the experience of all Governments since the war had shown the need for new forms of control which can operate swiftly and directly on the level of consumer demand.
The two new regulators which my right hon. and learned Friend is proposing in this year's Budget, and which we shall have a chance of discussing fully on the Finance Bill during all its stages, are certainly powerful weapons. If both regulators were to be used at the same time, and to their maximum extent, they would constitute an effective means of reducing real purchasing power amounting to 2 per cent. of the gross national product.
If these proposals are approved I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a stronger position to regulate the economy, and to promote a steady rate of economic progress, than any other finance Minister in the Western world. Naturally, very similar problems affect finance Ministers in other countries, and I have no doubt that many of them would wish that they had more economic weapons of this type.
I do not propose, this afternoon, to comment in detail on the first of these proposed regulators: the power to impose a surcharge or discount on the current rate of tax payable on all goods subject to indirect taxation. In view of what has been said about the second regulator—the proposed power to levy a surcharge on employers by means of an addition to the cost of the stamp—

I ought to say a few words on this regulator.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of increases in duties, would he answer the question I put about G.A.T.T.?

Sir E. Boyle: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to reply to that point later in the debate, but since the hon. and learned Gentleman raised it I am only too ready to answer him.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there was any possible connection between duties which are to be within the scope of the regulator and those which are or may be within the scope of the G.A.T.T. negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend said something about this to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition last Monday. Import duties, which are protective duties charged under the 1958 Act, and, of course, the anti-dumping duties, are outside the scope of the scheme. The margins of Commonwealth Preference and protection in the Revenue duties would be temporarily increased to a very small extent if the regulator were used for a surcharge. Any approach to G.A.T.T. and our partners in E.F.T.A. would have to be made in regard to such increases at the appropriate time. It is of the essence of the regulator that it provides equally for a rebate so that, in the circumstances, any margin of preference would be reduced. Furthermore, the adjustment may be less than the maximum, say, 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent. either way, but even at its maximum, the amount involved would be small. So far as E.F.T.A. is concerned, the margins of protection are temporary since they must be abolished by the end of 1964.
I must make it clear to the Committee that the second regulator is an economic regulator and not a tax on employment. There is nothing altogether new in the idea of this regulator. As far back as 1944 it was envisaged that the rate of National Insurance contribution might be varied for economic purposes and this point has been raised on a number of occasions.
A number of hon. and right hon. Members have objected to this proposed surcharge on the ground that it would be unselective. But I do not believe that


any Chancellor, of whatever party, faced with great pressures on our internal resources, could provide corrective action without the use of some form of general control. Any Chancellor must use some kind of general control to provide the corrective action needed. It is simply a matter of which general control to use.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about having some controls to provide a form of insurance—and I say that without giving it fancy names. Surely this is a variation of the employers' contribution, as far as National Insurance is concerned, for economic purposes.

Sir E. Boyle: I am not giving the proposal any fancy names, and I say frankly that this is a surcharge on employers' contributions.

Mr. John Hall: The Economic Secretary said that he wished to use this as a check to counter pressure on the nation's economy. Will not this form of check be slow in operation? Is it not possible that it will take between six and twelve months for its effect to be felt? Will it have the result that the Chancellor has in mind?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not believe that the effect need be as slow as my hon. Friend suggests, although I concede that it is of the essence of these regulators that they should be used early by the Government when it seems that the economy is moving into a period of excess pressure on resources. We have to remember that, as far as the National Insurance scheme is concerned, this surcharge will be paid direct to the Exchequer.

Mr. Mitchison: Since both regulators are subject to Parliamentary approval, what will happen if the gentlemen in Zurich bring about an exchange crisis in September?

Sir E. Boyle: I shall be dealing with the Parliamentary aspects of this matter later.

Mrs. Eirene White: The hon. Gentleman suggested that this regulator was purely fiscal, but surely the Chancellor related to it the employment of labour and economy in the use of

labour. It would seem, therefore, that it is not purely fiscal and that it is intended to have some industrial effect as well. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Government are considering using a part of the funds resulting from this tax for some compensation for industrial redundancy?

Sir E. Boyle: The Government have no such intention. While it is true that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that the regulator would have some effect on the labour-intensive industries, the prime object of the regulator is economic. I can assure the Committee that the regulator's prime object is that it should be an economic measure to prevent excess demand on the economy, and it is not intended as a tax on employment.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain these words used by the President of the Board of Trade:
The payroll tax will induce employers to use their labour, skilled and unskilled, more efficiently and give them more horsepower to their elbow".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1012.]
That is the point about which I and my hon. Friends would like more information. The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed that point.

Sir E. Boyle: I was present in the Committee when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made that speech. I have no doubt that it will have some effect in the way my right hon. Friend indicated. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) will be aware that my right hon. Friend was speaking about the effect that the regulator will have.
I wish to make it plain that the Government intend this proposal as a means of preventing excess demand on the economy, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make reference to this point again later this afternoon.

Mr. Loughlin: Mr. Loughlin rose—

Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to be discourteous. I had hoped to make a relatively short speech, and I think that this is the way, if there are to be these interruptions, that hon. Members are kept out of the debate

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: If the main purpose is an economic regulator—I hope that I am not anticipating my hon. Friend's next remarks—has he considered the position of development areas such as Northern Ireland where, obviously, such a regulator would be inappropriate?

Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend has precisely anticipated my very next sentence. I was about to mention Northern Ireland. I know that, because a surcharge of this kind has to apply equally to all areas of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, certain hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have expressed fears that it might have an adverse effect on places with local employment problems. But when one considers that the surcharge at its maximum rate would add to the cost of employing each man only £10 a year, I simply do not believe that a surcharge at that level could materially affect problems of local employment or—and this is the point—nullify the positive measures which the Government are taking to solve local employment problems.
The Government are taking power to vary the levy on employers in respect of different categories of employees—that is to say, the retired, men and women, or boys and girls—who pay separate rates under the National Insurance scheme. I think I ought to make clear that there is no power to exclude specific types of employment, for instance, private or domestic employment. Different categories of employees may be treated differently but not different types of employment.
My last point regarding the regulators concerns the Parliamentary aspect. I quite agree that my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals have very real Parliamentary and, perhaps, even constitutional significance, but I have two points to put to the Committee on this. First, I believe that it is wholly desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whichever party is in power, should be able to regulate the economy in the short term without his measures evoking the sense of crisis, both political and economic, which has always tended to accompany autumn Budgets in the past. Further—I say this in view of what the right hon. Member for Huyton said on Tuesday—I cannot see why we should

invariably have to have all the paraphernalia of a Budget and Finance Bill, with all-night sittings and the rest—brooms and brushes, pots and pans, and so on—merely because pressures on the economy have been building up at a faster rate than the Chancellor could have foreseen some months before. In my view, this does not make sense and, incidentally, it is thoroughly bad for sterling as well.
Secondly, whatever hon. Members may think about the proposals, it is worth remembering that neither of them would of itself affect the distribution of the national income. In my view, it is absolutely right that we should fight our political battles out hard on Budget matters when we consider the highly political issue of how the national income should be distributed. But I do not believe that the use of these non-discriminating regulators would justify either the amount of Parliamentary time or the degree of political excitement traditionally associated with the Budget as one of the major occasions of the Parliamentary year. What is important is that Parliament should have the opportunity each year to decide whether or not to give these powers to the Chancellor of the day for the following year, and this will be fully provided for in this year's Finance Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point about a crisis in September. For some reason, it is a very critical time of the year in Zurich. Also, will he deal with this point: if the Chancellor is to take these powers, why not have them for tax avoidance, as we have so often suggested?

Sir E. Boyle: I will not be diverted to the point about tax avoidance, but I will answer the other question which the hon. and learned Member asked. We all know that in many spheres, both at home and abroad, the early autumn is a rather critical time. I certainly would not rule out the possibility of the Government using one of these regulators and putting it into force at a time when Parliament was not sitting. I think it is of the essence of the regulators that they may on occasions have to be used, if there is a critical time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick) rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): Order. I ask hon. and right hon. Members to remember that there is a long list of Members anxious to speak. There have been many interruptions during the Financial Secretary's speech, though I do not suggest that they were in any way unfair. However, in fairness to the general run of hon. Members, I think that it would be appreciated by the Committee if interventions were much reduced.

Mr. George Brown: What you have said, Sir Harry, is quite right, if I may say so, and I am sorry to seem in conflict with it by rising to speak, but the hon. Gentleman has just made a somewhat surprising assertion, on the face of it, that this power which, so we are told, is to be exercised by affirmative Resolution is not ruled out for use when Parliament is not sitting to make an affirmative Resolution. Is that not something which should be cleared up?

Sir E. Boyle: I did not say that. It is well known that, where indirect taxation is concerned, Parliament cannot vote to put up indirect taxes before the taxes themselves are raised. I was merely saying that, in the case of a crisis, I could well imagine that a circumstance could arise in which it might be necessary for this regulator to be used at a time when Parliament was not actually sitting. But, of course, Parliament would have to approve the affirmative Resolution. Just exactly what the arrangements would be, whether Parliament would be recalled or not, and so forth, would be a matter for those more senior than myself. As I say, I think it is of the essence of these proposals that the Chancellor should be free to use them if there is excess demand on the economy at the time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: How could the Chancellor use them without an affirmative Resolution?

Sir E. Boyle: Then, of course, Parliament would have to pass an affirmative Resolution. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, there is no difference here from the case of other indirect taxation because, invariably, steps have to be taken, the taxes have to be imposed and then, of course, we pass the Bill. It is impossible to give notice of an intention to raise indirect taxes. In any case,

it is a matter which we can discuss in greater detail on the Finance Bill.

Mr. McMaster: Mr. McMaster rose—

Sir E. Boyle: No. I must not give way again.
I come now to my right hon. and learned Friend's Surtax proposals. I say at once that I do not feel in the least apologetic in defending them. Of course, if one looks at the reliefs by themselves they appear large reliefs, but I maintain that, if one is to view the question at all fairly, one has to consider my right hon. and learned Friend's Surtax reliefs in the context of fiscal and social policy as a whole during the past ten or twenty years.
It is not true to say that the present Government have favoured Surtax payers at the expense of other members of the community. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out on Tuesday, Surtax rates have not changed at all during the past ten years, while real wages have risen by 32 per cent. and social service expenditure has risen by 90 per cent. I think that one needs to look back even further than that. A married man with two small children who earns £3,000 a year today would have earned £1,000 in the last tax year before the war, 1938–39. In that year, he would have paid £111 12s. 6d. in Income Tax. Today, he pays £753 3s. 4d. in Income Tax and Surtax, the Surtax element included within it being £75. I refuse to believe that even a Labour Chancellor, had he been in power in 1938, would have wished to levy Surtax on a man earning £1,000 a year at that time. By the same token, I cannot see the justice in levying Surtax on top of a high standard rate of Income Tax on a man earning £3,000 a year today. The truth is that it is absolutely right for the whole structure of Surtax to be revised as the nation gradually becomes richer, as it has done fairly rapidly during the past ten years.
The same is true of the finances of the social services. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) in an extremely interesting speech yesterday pointed this out, and of course, he was absolutely right.
Furthermore, we have to consider in this connection not only our own British


tax rates but also the comparison between our rates and those of other countries. I mentioned just now the case of a married man with two small children having an earned income of £3,000 a year. Until now, if he could raise his income to £4,000 a year, he was able to keep, after paying Income Tax and Surtax, only £539 of the extra £1,000. A man in the same circumstances in Western Germany would keep £673 of the extra £1,000 and in the United States he would keep £793. Under my right hon. and learned Friend's new proposals he will keep not only £539 of the extra £1,000 but £699. In other words, he will be treated slightly more generously than his opposite number in Germany but considerably less generously than his opposite number in the United States.
Speaking for myself, and I believe on behalf of all my hon. Friends, I have not the slightest desire to see Britain continuing at the bottom of that league table. It cannot be right that our tax treatment of men earning salaries in the region of £3,000–£4,000 should be substantially less generous than that of our two principal trade competitors. Like the author of what seemed to me a particularly helpful and sensible leading article in the Guardian, I find it
hard to believe that the sharp rise in marginal rates of taxes borne by executives in the middle ranges has not had some effect in blunting the competitive drive of industry.
I hope in this connection that no hon. Member will be misled by what the right hon. Member for Huyton said about importers last Tuesday. It sounded a good point and it greatly amused the Committee, but it was entirely misleading. A curious feature about the right hon. Gentleman's speeches is that he gives us twenty minutes of serious economic analysis and then makes a point which reminds me of nothing so much as the late Sir Alfred Munnings discussing Picasso or Matisse at a Royal Academy dinner.
It is, of course, nonsense to say that we want to encourage the efficiency and productivity of those who are connected with the export trade, but that we want to do the reverse for those who are concerned with importing and selling on the home market. Surely our aim must be to improve our productive efficiency right along the line, realising that the

strength of our balance of payments reflects our competititive economic performance over the economy as a whole. We need to reduce our costs of production and to increase the real productivity of our resources in every aspect of our economic life, and this includes importers and people who work for the home market, just as well as exporters. What tends to make our imports too big relative to our exports is not that our importers are working unduly hard but that our production in the country generally is carried on at costs insufficiently low relative to other people's costs.
The right hon. Gentleman, like many of his hon. Friends, had a great deal to say about what he termed social justice. Obviously we are here dealing with deep divisions of political attitude—divisions which probably, more than anything else, decide on which side of the Committee we sit. But I should like to say, for myself, that justice consists in giving everybody his or her due and in the recognition that everyone has an equal right to be treated fairly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let us see how that principle works. I should certainly agree with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), to whose speech I listened with great interest the other night, that it is one important mark of civilised society that there are minimum standards of welfare below which no one is allowed to fall; and I am bound to say that when I consider the rising curve, in real terms, of expenditure on National Assistance in recent years, I cannot help thinking that Britain today comes off fairly well by this test.
But, with the greatest respect, it is not the only test. In my view it is just as important, for example, to ensure that children of good average ability—the sort of children one often meets nowadays in the top streams of our secondary modern schools—are given widening areas of opportunity as a result of the education which they receive. I would say to the hon. Member for Sowerby that that will do more to break down class attitudes in this country than almost anything else. I certainly do not consider that it is a mark of a just society that it penalises success and blunts, by excessive taxation, rewards for exceptional ability. In any society, of all scarce resources exceptional


ability is the scarcest of all. If we cannot, as a nation, retain our share of able people, we certainly shall not be able to play our full part as a member of the Western Alliance of free nations. And when we are considering the incidence of our tax system, how it compares with that of other nations and how it impinges on the ablest people in our society, we must think not only of those who are paying Surtax now but also of those younger men of ability who know that they will get into the Surtax range before long. Judging by all these tests, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals have been entirely justified and that they should receive the wholehearted support of the Committee.
The hon. Member for Sowerby raised the question of people with mixed incomes. He will agree that no one with a pure rentier income will receive any benefit from these proposals. But if we consider the man with a mixed income, I do not think that it would be sensible, taking the case of a man with £4,000 a year earned income and an investment income of £100 a year, to tax the £100 alone at 25 per cent. Do we want to do that? I do not believe that it would make sense, and it surely must be a deterrent to savings. In my view, to tax the £100 at the high rate of 25 per cent. and not at the rate of 10 per cent. when we do not tax the £4,000 earned income must be a deterrent to savings, and indefensible.

Mr. Houghton: I was not criticising that feature of the proposals alone. I merely wanted it to be clear.

Sir E. Boyle: I think that the hon. Member wanted it made clear with a slightly displeased intent. That is why I raised the point.
By far the greater part of these Surtax proposals are to be paid for by a further increase in Profits Tax, but I would remind the Committee that while Profits Tax is being raised, the investment allowance remains unaltered. In this respect, as in every other respect, my right hon. and learned Friend is combining a policy of budgetary firmness with a full recognition of the crucial importance of economic growth. In short, while deciding to restrain the growth of consumer demand this year, my right hon. and learned

Friend has at the same time taken steps which should lead to a faster and steadier rate of expansion in the future than we have had in the past.
We have heard a great deal in the debate about stagnation, and I think that much of this has been very exaggerated. I do not believe that there is any need to be too gloomy at the prospect for increased production during the forthcoming year, although it is of the essence of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals that the full extent of their benefits to the economy will be felt not only in the short term but in the longer term, too.
I commend all of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals which I have discussed this afternoon—the Budget surplus, the regulators and the Surtax proposals—to the Committee with every confidence.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he would make only a short speech but in fact he took a long time and covered a number of subjects. I wish to take him up on one or two points which he made. He uttered some quite worthy sentiments about social justice, and what he said about ensuring that the more intelligent and able members of our community had a proper share of what was going was something with which none of us disagrees. I refer to proper opportunities for a full education, for instance. That is common ground amongst us all.
But it was revealing that he said that one of the tests of social justice in the community which we have in this country was to look at the National Assistance payments over the last few years. The very fact that he mentioned the National Assistance payments in these approving terms demonstrates the great gulf between the two sides of the Committee.
The Government fail to realise that we on this side of the Committee want to see our normal, ordinary, social security benefits being paid at a sufficient level to ensure that only very few people, in exceptional circumstances, are forced to go to the National Assistance Board. We are not against the National Assistance Board on principle and we


think that it has an important part to play in our social services, but we very much resent and oppose the attitude of hon. Members opposite and the Government's deliberate policy over the last few years, which has been to keep down the basic level of social security benefits and to force more and more people to have recourse to the National Assistance Board. That is why it is particularly revealing that the Financial Secretary, who usually chooses his words carefully, talked about payments made by the National Assistance Board as a test of social justice in this country.
From the point of view of the ordinary man, and certainly from the point of view of the recipients of National Assistance, the fact that more National Assistance payments were made over the last two years proves that there has been a considerable growth in social injustice over the last few years. The growing disparity between what is available to the better-off members of our community and the relatively small sums now available to those who are less fortunately placed is one of the most disturbing features of what has been happening in Britain.
I wish to take up another point concerning the payroll tax. The Government will have appreciated by now that this proposal has had a thoroughly unpopular reception, even among hon. Members opposite. I do not think that it is very profitable to argue whether the payroll tax is to be an economic regulator, part of our fiscal structure or a purely economic element in the Government's control of the economy. I do not think that matters very much. The important point is what is likely to be the effect of the payroll tax if it is imposed. If the Financial Secretary has taken account of the reaction to this proposal in Scotland, for example, where, as he knows, we have serious unemployment problems, he will realise that, not only Scottish trade unionists, but Scottish employers and other organisations, such as the Scottish Council for the Development of Industry, have said that they thoroughly disagree with the Government's proposal for a payroll tax. I hope that the Government will take a note of these criticisms, which do not come merely from one source of political opinion in Scotland. The same applies to other development areas.
If the Government ever have to impose a payroll tax, it will be a question, not of what amount of money they will draw by it, but of the psychological impact that the imposition of it will have on employers. I am sure that in many areas which are difficult from the employment point of view, where many employers who are in difficult circumstances nevertheless try to retain labour, one of the results of it, even at 4s. a week, will simply be to encourage employers to get rid of workers. However justifiable that may be in areas where there is a tremendous demand for labour, it would certainly prove a considerable blow to areas like Scotland where the opposite is and has been the case during the last few years, and, so long as we have the present Government in power, it is likely to be the case during the next few years.
The Financial Secretary spoke about the very large surplus for which the Chancellor was budgeting and drew attention to the effect that it ought to have on the economy as a whole, particularly on investment and exports. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was budgeting for a considerable surplus. The surplus above-the-line for which he was budgeting last year was £300 million. The out-turn was only about half that figure. But the difference between £300 million and £500 million is not as significant as the hon. Gentleman suggested this afternoon.
The fact is that, after the Chancellor budgeted for that considerable surplus last year, we had the worst export and balance of payments results for ten years. There was also stagnation in industrial production. Therefore, there is not necessarily a direct connection between the large surplus which is being budgeted for this year, even if the figures as they eventually emerge substantiate the estimate, and the problem about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was speaking the other day. It is true that investment, including industrial investment, went up considerably last year, but again that was a year in which we had the worst balance of payments results for about ten years. Last year there were not the adverse international factors with which the Government of 1951 had to contend


The thing above all other things which is preventing the economy from moving forward rapidly and consistently is the tremendous difficulty that we in this country have in getting the exports that we need. I do not think the Government disagree with that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton criticised the economic relevance of the Budget from the point of view of the export situation. It is not enough for the Financial Secretary to attempt to deal with my right hon. Friend's point that Surtax concessions are an encouragement to importers as well as to exporters by saying that the Government are trying to give a lift to the whole economy and that they are trying to bring about more production and more investment. These are all worthy objectives, but the objective of increasing exports is the most important objective of all. The Surtax concessions are completely irrelevant from that point of view.
The Government have recently introduced one or two provisions on exports which will be of some assistance from the point of view of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. But these are marginal items only. I do not think that, by themselves, they will make a substantial impact on the exports problem. I do not wish to say much about this, but one thing which is worth saying is that this is not simply an economic problem. It is also partly a psychological problem. One of the things which strikes the objective observer of the progress of the European Economic Community over the last few years is that those concerned have found the answer to the problem of getting a consistent economic dyniamism. That is precisely what we do not have. Europe also has manufacturers and industrialists who consider that export markets as well as home markets are essential to their prosperity.
Unless we get some of the dynamism in the British economy which the European Common Market has managed to achieve in the last few years, there is no doubt that our lack of progress over the last few years will continue. There is nothing in the Budget which deals with this admittedly extremely difficult and almost intractable problem. The criticisms of my right hon. Friend about it have by no means been answered by the Government.
The Surtax proposals are the part of the Budget which has given rise to the most controversy. There is need for incentives to all sorts of people, but the plain, brutal fact is that this Budget gives nothing to anyone earning less than £40 a week. That is something which no amount of sophisticated argument on the part of the Financial Secretary or anyone else can deny. The people earning less than £40 a week—and they make up easily the majority of people in this country—get nothing from the Budget. If we want to bring about incentives, we must take into account, not merely the 300,000 Surtax payers, but the mass of the people.
When some hon. Members on this side of the Committee speak about the Budget being economically neutral, they misjudge it, because the Surtax concessions will have very considerable social influences. For example, I imagine that trade unionists will put considerable pressure on their trade union leaders for increased wages. Who can blame them when Surtax savings which amount to double or three times the annual wages of hundreds of thousands of people are going to those with much higher incomes? These people will not look upon the Surtax concessions as making the boss happy, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) suggested. They will regard the Surtax concessions as a direct incentive for them to go forward with their wage claims to ensure that, if there is this additional prosperity which is meant to be going about in the economy, they themselves share in it.
Fax from the Surtax concessions being economically neutral, they will certainly create conditions in which trade unions and others are far more vigorous in their pursuit of wage claims, and old-age pensioners will be far more bitter about the Government's treatment of them than even they have been in the past. The Government are completely misjudging the temper of the people and crediting them with considerably less native intelligence than they have if they imagine that the kind of arguments which have been put for this drastic improvement in the standard of living of Surtax payers will satisfy the vast mass of people, because I am sure that they will not. Neither will they satisfy the many members of the middle-management class who are earning less than £2,000 a year.
Some hon. Members opposite have such large incomes that they forget that there are hundreds of thousands of important people engaged in management who have never paid Surtax because their incomes have never come up to the Surtax level. These people also who are holding responsible jobs require incentives but, again, they have absolutely nothing from the Budget.
Another point about the Surtax concessions which is well worth making, and one which has not been made so far, is that the way in which the Surtax concessions have been given, apart from the general iniquity of the proposal, is such that the single man comes off much better than the married man. I am talking not simply of the actual remissions of taxation which have been given by the concessions, but about the net income which is left to the married man as compared with the single person, even at the kind of figures which hon. Members opposite have been quoting to us. For example, the £5,000 a year single person is left with an income of £3,560. The married man with two children and who earns £5,000 is left with an income of £3,680. In other words, the net difference between the married man with two children and the single person, even at an income of £5,000, is now only £120 a year.
If the Government had to give these concessions—and we bitterly oppose giving them at all—could they not at least have done something to ensure that rather more of the money available went to the married man with family responsibilities? Why should the married man with two children and earning £5,000 a year have a net income only £120 more than a single person with the same gross income but nothing like the same responsibilities? This does not apply only to Surtax payers, but it applies right down the scale of Income Tax allowances. In effect we are not paying proper attention in our Income Tax and Surtax allowances to the circumstances of the married man, particularly the married man with children. If the Government had this £83 million to give away, they would have been far better advised to give some of it in Income Tax concessions, particularly to married persons, than to give away this tremendous sum of money to Surtax payers, many of whom deserve no concession at all.
Another point that is worth quoting on the question of Surtax is that it does not seem to be generally realised that the exemption limit for Income Tax for a single man is only about £4 a week. In other words, the single man with an earned income of £4 a week begins to pay Income Tax, and the married man with an earned income of £6 a week begins to pay it. If the Government wanted to ensure that in no circumstances would people with small incomes like that pay Income Tax, it should not be their first priority to give substantial sums like £1,200 a year Surtax remission to the £10,000 a year man or £1,800 Surtax remission to the £20,000 a year man. We have been forgetting the plight of the smaller wage earners in the Income Tax concessions which have been given over the last few years. It is scandalous that with the cost of living as it is today, people should begin to pay Income Tax at either £4 or £6 a week.
The Government have justified the Surtax concessions partly by saying that they are being paid for out of the Profits Tax, but this suggestion does not stand serious examination. It is true that Profits Tax is going up this year by £1½ million, next year by £45 million, and by £70 million in the following year. The tax on heavy oils, however, is going up this year by £48 million and by £50 million next year. Why should we not say that we are paying for Surtax concessions equally by imposing a tax on heavy oils? There is no direct connection between the Surtax concessions and the increased rate of Profits Tax.
Why should we not say, as is equally to the point, that we are paying for the Surtax concessions by the increases in the National Health charges and the National Insurance contributions that were made two months ago? The Chancellor in his Budget statement and other Government Front Bench speakers have admitted that the £60 million which the Government will receive by these provisions over the next year has been an important factor in their general assessment of the Budget position. That is equally valid, and in the eyes of many ordinary people—I do not blame them—the Surtax concessions will have been paid for, not by Profits Tax or the tax on heavy oils, but by the National


Health Service and the National Insurance contributions increases which have just been imposed upon them. In any event, it is a mistake to say, as the President of the Board of Trade said the day before yesterday, that even if the Surtax concessions were financed out of Profits Tax, which I do not admit, they would be paid for by the equity shareholders.
The simplest answer is to consider what happened to ordinary share prices on the Stock Exchange the day after the Budget announcement. There has been no drop in Stock Exchange prices and I am willing to warrant that there will be no drop in dividend payments in the coming year because of the increased Profits Tax. There was an increase in Profits Tax in last year's Budget, but the increase in dividend payments during 1960 must have been the biggest increase for many a year. My view is that there will be no reduction in dividend payments this year because of the Budget increases in Profits Tax. It is a complete misrepresentation of the position to say that the equity shareholders will pay for the Surtax concession, because that simply will not happen, as the developments over the next year or so will show.
It might just have been possible on their own terms, and this might have helped to satisfy hon. Members on this side, for the Government to have substantiated their Surtax concessions by introducing a capital gains tax. I am extremely disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been congratulated by many hon. Members on his side of the Committee for his imagination, should have dealt with the question of a capital gains tax so perfunctorily in his Budget statement and that we have had from no Government Front Bench spokesman or any back bencher opposite any serious attempt to deal with the question of a capital gains tax.
I have not the time to go into the matter in detail, but the Government seem to be relying on the estimates of the yield from a capital gains tax which were given by the Inland Revenue at the time of the Royal Commission on Taxation. The Government should be reminded that the Minority Report of the Royal Commission explicitly rejected the assumptions on which the Inland Revenue estimates

were made. I defy any member of the Government to read the Royal Commission's Report in detail and to read the statement by the Inland Revenue attached to it and not to come to the conclusion that the Minority Report of the Royal Commission much more accurately represented what was likely to happen concerning share and property values. It has been proved that the Minority Report of the Royal Commission gave a far more accurate estimate of the likely yield from a capital gains tax.
It is disgraceful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other members of the Government have given no serious attention to this matter. It is the most conspicuous lack of justice in our taxation system that we do not have any provision for the taxation of capital gains. On grounds of practicability, obviously there are difficulties, but they could be surmounted. On grounds of justice and of equity, there is an irrefutable case for imposing capital gains taxation. I understand that a number of hon. Members on the Government side are now in favour of this and I dare say that we might see a minor attempt at a capital gains tax when we approach the next Genera! Election; but we have not had it this year and it is the most conspicuous source of inequity in our taxation system that there should be no taxation of capital gains. The Chancellor's complete inadequacy in that direction, taken with the concessions which have been given to the Surtax payers, is eloquent testimony to the kind of inequitable and reactionary thinking that exists on the other side of the Committee on these taxation problems.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I would ask hon. Members to exercise their customary tolerance to a Member making his first speech in this Committee. I hope that if, in the course of my remarks to the Committee, I make what are considered to be constructive criticisms of the Government's economic policy, this will not be considered indicative of a person representing a constituency noted throughout the world for its production of sauce. Indeed, in Worcestershire, we do not live by sauce alone. In fact, we have in the constituency of Worcester probably a greater diversity of industry and mixture of farming


than any other constituency in the country. This alone makes it difficult to be a worthy Member for such a constituency, and my difficulties are added to by endeavouring to attain the high standards of service to the constituency and to this House made by my noble and gallant predecessor, the former Secretary of State for Air.
I should like to comment upon the views expressed by hon. Members opposite to the effect—and on this I certainly consider that there is some justification—that if we do provide incentive by means of Surtax reductions it is not necessarily a direct benefit to the export market. I think that Her Majesty's Government have to endeavour to see that, whatever incentive is given to greater effort as a result of this reduction in Surtax, it is directed towards our export effort.
One of the problems, I believe, is that many of those who will be affected by such incentives are people who, if they decide to make a greater effort, will make that greater effort in the home market, primarily because they are not aware of the processes and arrangements involved in exporting. We must endeavour to create the type of atmosphere which exists in Western Germany where many of the business men consider that in some respects it is easier to export than it is to sell to the home market. One reason is that they get their money quicker. They use similar services to those provided by E.C.G.D. in this country and, in co-operation with the vigorous banking system existing in Western Germany, they are able to find means of disposing of their goods with every possible speed and obtaining their rewards for selling those goods.
I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he should look into the possibility of seeing whether the very excellent facilities which he has provided through E.C.G.D. could be brought more vigorously to the attention of some of the smaller manufacturers in this country. We cannot do this, I suggest, by advertising to people the need to read the booklet on what E.C.G.D. covers, because the type of manufacturer concerned would not dream of doing that. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he should endeavour to make an

approach to the chairmen of the joint stock banks asking them to use their very close association with small business men and manufacturers throughout the country to make known to them, through their bank managers, the methods involved in exporting. For example, the President of the Board of Trade might suggest to them that they should make arrangements for the branch managers of the banks either to attend a conference or to be briefed in some other way by the officials of the E.C.G.D., and through them to contact their customers. This, I believe, would ensure a very substantial increase of knowledge of the services provided in this country.
The other point on which I wish to comment is the concern with which I view the very sharp decline in the trend of our Commonwealth trade. In the years 1954 to 1959, we had the unfortunate position where the rise in the imports of the overseas non-sterling countries was not as great as in the rest of the world. This was a reasonable excuse for arguing that our exports were not rising to the same degree as those of other exporting countries. But, in the year 1960, we saw a position in which there was a very sharp rise in the imports of overseas sterling countries. But, alas, this country did not obtain its share of that very sharp rise. In fact, we saw a position where, if we had maintained our proportion of Commonwealth trade over the years 1954 to 1960, we should have exported last year to the overseas sterling markets about £300 million more than we did. This in itself would have met the deficit of trade which we showed last year.
I suggest that it is the urgent duty of Her Majesty's Government to pay far more attention to the markets of the Commonwealth than they have done in the past. I certainly feel that there has been something of a negative attitude towards the Commonwealth markets. There has been a tendency, because we have been closed out of the Common Market, to call the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth to this country not to discuss and formulate a vigorous policy for expanding our trade with the Commonwealth but to discuss the concessions which they may be willing to make to


get into the Common Market countries. This is a matter which, I believe, has contributed to this large fall in the proportion of Commonwealth trade enjoyed by this country. In fact, it would appear that we are beginning to give away the substance of Commonwealth trade for the potage of possibilities elsewhere.
I ask the Government to give far more attention to the problem. There are many things which we could do in the long-term and in the short-term to increase trade and economic development within the Commonwealth. I suggest that we should look at the possibilities of a policy based on the three fundamentals of economic growth—men, money and markets. During the last General Election it was commented by the party on this side of the Committee that there was a need probably to provide some form of education appropriate to executive training, similar to the education provided by such institutions as the Harvard School of Business Administration. I ask Her Majesty's Government to give some consideration to going ahead with a project, possibly on a Commonwealth basis, whereby we could obtain or create an élite of business executives of the future, Commonwealth-minded and well aware of the potentialities of that market.
As for money, I find it difficult to argue that there is need to spend a vast amount of money on the military defence of the Commonwealth—with which I agree. I do not in any way support a policy of disarmament, unless under international control, and I certainly do not take a unilateralist view—but to argue that it is correct to spend a great deal on the military defence of the Commonwealth and then do relatively so little for its economic defence is something which I believe is to many hon. Members a matter of very grave concern.
When one notices the increase in economic penetration by the Communists in the countries of Africa and Asia, I believe that we shall very soon have to decide what vehicles we shall use and what new methods we shall employ to bring about a far greater and faster development of under-developed territories within our Commonwealth. To this end, I would very much urge upon the Government to consider

whether or not one of the problems involved is the question of Ministerial responsibility and the fact that there is no Ministry which has the responsibility of arousing the interest of this country in the problems of Commonwealth economic development.
My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations are both heavily involved in political problems abroad, in the Commonwealth countries, and neither can be expected to try to arouse the economic interest of this country in the problems of those countries. We should give thought to this so that in time we shall have meetings of Commonwealth Finance Ministers and economic advisers to create the kind of dynamic, vigorous, Commonwealth economic policies which will stimulate Commonwealth markets and bring about an expansion of the economy of this country.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I am glad to have the honour of following the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in the debate and of congratulating him on a maiden speech which was eloquent, cogent and well argued. I noted with the greatest admiration that he spoke without the benefit of the lifebelt of notes, which so many of us who have been so much longer in the House of Commons cling to so grimly. May I say, speaking on behalf of the whole Committee, that I am sure he will very worthily uphold the distinguished record of his predecessor who was equally regarded and respected on both sides of the Chamber. I hope that we shall have the pleasure and opportunity of listening to the hon. Member on many other occasions.
The debate is concerned with a Budget which I would describe as a class Budget. The most striking aspect of it is the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown himself not only to be an accountant, putting a jigsaw of money together, but, much more than that, a Tory philosopher who applies his philosophy in the reality of his fiscal arrangements. Therefore, one of the most striking things about the Budget is the manner in which the Chancellor has set about rehabilitating


the middle classes and seeking to crystallise the class divisions of our society which, after 1945, had become fluid.
I am certain that since last Monday the Chancellor has become the toast of the "Jaguar band" and that all over the the country, wherever there are Surtax payers, he is one of the most popular of men. As has been emphasised time after time from this side of the Committee, the concessions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made to the Surtax payer will have to be paid for by somebody. It is certain that eventually they will have to be paid for by manual workers. It is perfectly clear that all the benefits that he has distributed with such a lavish hand—and I cannot help feeling that there are certain political considerations involved in the concessions to Surtax payers who are the commandos of the Tory parties in the constituencies—will ultimately have to be paid for, not only in cash but in the resentment and grievance which will be felt more and more, as the year proceeds, by manual workers.

Sir Alexander Spearman: Does the hon. Member not think that if the Chancellor's only object was to please the rich section of the community he would have made some difference to those who pay Surtax on investment income? They receive nothing at all from the Budget.

Mr. Edelman: I should have thought that the splendid gift which the Chancellor has given to the Surtax payers on earned income would have been sufficient bonus for one Budget. I am quite sure that the weight of his next Budget, if he presents one, will be addressed to those who received unearned income.
It has become manifest during its ten years of power that the whole trend of Tory Party policy has been to perpetuate and deepen the inequalities in our society. One of the most manifest expressions of that is the way in which the Chancellor has totally and abjectly failed to tackle those who make the ostentatious capital gains which cause such great resentment throughout the country.
The Home Secretary occupies himself at various conferences with the crime wave and with organised crime, but the right hon. Gentleman need not look

very far for the source of the trouble. It lies in the social and moral climate created by the fact that people are able to make these take-over bids and obtain great capital gains. The result is that when criminals see the way in which that form of theft from society has been legalised they naturally imitate it and ask themselves why, if it is so easy to make large sums of money overnight by take-over bids, they should not break into a bank and also take over large sums of money.
I am sure that the mood of our society derives from the fact, which is half-intimated by the Press day after day in its social columns, that these people who make take-over bids and capital gains make vast fortunes and that this makes the hard-earning producer feel that crime pays. The way we are going, crime has become a form of take-over bid by other means.
The second aspect of the Budget, which also springs from the manner in which the Chancellor has imposed a Tory philosophy on his fiscal approach, is the curious way in which the Financial Secretary said today, in a rather glib and unobstrusive manner, that the Government proposed to introduce regulators which are, in effect, another form of control. It is interesting to see how the word "control", which, at one time, was a term of abuse by hon. Members opposite, has now been slipped into the Budget statement—quite properly, of course—as a technique of economic arrangement.
The Financial Secretary described these regulators as having an economic basis. I looked up the word "regulator" in the Oxford dictionary. It means control by rule. The innovation contained in the Budget is that the Tory Government, for the first time, have shown that they are at last converted not only to the idea of controls to regulate the economy but also to the idea of planning, which the Federation of British Industries advanced earlier in the year for the first time as a word devoid and stripped of its pejorative sense.
Through this Budget, the Chancellor is looking ahead to a suitable time at which to make industrial arrangements which, I believe, will be to the detriment of the manual worker. Although the Financial Secretary put a gloss on


the Chancellor's words, he kept emphasising that the purpose of these regulators was purely economic. When challenged by one of my hon. Friends, who suggested that the purpose was industrial, the Financial Secretary seemed rather to deny it, or, alternatively, to suggest that if there were industrial consequences they would be incidental and not the main object of the exercise.
The Chancellor, however, took a different view in his Budget statement. He too, was challenged, and I shall quote what he said. Referring to the payroll tax, the Chancellor said:
The use of such a measure as an economic regulator would have the added advantage that when we are faced with a situation of chronic shortage of labour, it would act as an incentive to economy in the use of manpower and to investment in labour saving equipment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 808.]
Economy of manpower is a subject which has exercised the mind of the Government—I am glad to see the Minister of Labour present—ever since the recession began in the motor industry. If I concern myself with this issue for a few minutes, it is because I believe that the origin of the anxiety in the Government's mind about the need to shed labour from specific industries coincided with the origin of the recession in the motor industry, when the idea of a payroll tax was fully ventilated.
In Coventry, during the last few months, there has been a great deal of talk about the possibility of a payroll tax. I discounted it, because I could not imagine that the Government wanted unemployment in our city. It was with a sense of shock on Monday that I realised that these rumours had had some basis in fact.
It is a notorious fact that the President of the Board of Trade had conversations with motor manufacturers, and was constantly urging them to get rid of a certain proportion of their labour force. Those manufacturers, partly out of prudence, but perhaps even more because of the organised resistance of the trade union movement, side by side with the political wing of the Labour movement, resisted this attempt to press them into creating full-scale unemployment and not merely part-time working inside the industry.
In Coventry, we have certain redundancy agreements, and these put the brake on the intentions of employers who wanted to sack men instead of putting them on short time. A short time ago Messrs. Rootes, Limited felt that it should sack approximately 800 men. When the firm started to send out dismissal notices, it was met by the organised resistance of the trade unions in Coventry and the political wing of the Labour movement. We resisted the dismissals because we felt that an industry which had made such large profits over so long a period was in a position to carry its labour force until it reached better times again, when the men could be restored to full employment.
Let us envisage a hypothetical situation for later this year. I do not think that the motor industry is out of the wood by any means. As the summer boom begins to deflate and we approach winter, we may get urgent recommendations—quite proper from a certain point of view—from the Government that employers should occupy themselves with automation and mechanical methods of production which will reduce the need for physical manpower. There will then be a repetition of short time, or dismissals, in Coventry.
I believe that this may well happen, and that this is the sort of situation which the Chancellor envisaged in introducing the payroll tax. If that happens the employers, instead of being in a mood to argue and to consider the just claims of the men, may say, "We cannot do anything. We are the victims of circumstances. The Government have imposed on us a tax of 4s. per week per head, which makes it uneconomic to maintain a labour force greater than we directly need for full-time production."
In such a situation, we will get dismissals—or whatever euphemism the Government use; perhaps "economy in the use of manpower"—and the transitional hardship felt in Coventry in the past few months will become the chronic hardship which has been felt under Tory administration in other parts of the country, including Northern Ireland, Wales and elsewhere. There has been great hardship in Coventry during these last few months, with men and women on short time who were committed to hire-purchase agreements,


to rent and to other obligations based on the standard of living they had previously enjoyed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If such a situation does arise, it would mean a repudiation of a national agreement between a number of the trade unions and the engineering employers, which says that systematic short-time should be worked wherever practicable in preference to discharging men.

Mr. Edelman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That sustains my argument. I forecast that the Government will think twice about this proposal, but if they try to implement it it will mean disrupting large numbers of industrial agreements and will cause the bitterest resentment among workers throughout industry, and, in particular, the motor industry.

Mr. Christopher Chataway: Is the hon. Gentleman an out-and-out Luddite? Is he against any means of encouraging the substitution of machinery for men, such as investment allowances, which have exactly the same effect as the proposed payroll tax?

Mr. Edelman: I am certainly not a Luddite. On the contrary, I very much believe in the use of machinery and automation to lighten the labour of the worker, but I am also in favour of planning the country's economy so that there should be not this seasonal unemployment in the motor industry, but a planned pattern of employment. We need a planned economy instead of this arbitrary, fiscal system whereby, in carrying out a gastrectomy the Chancellor, instead of using a scalpel, uses a hatchet.

Mr. John Hall: I was interested in the hon. Member's statement that he believed in planning the economy to avoid a fluctuation of demand. How will he manage that when the motor car industry depends a great deal on exports?

Mr. Edelman: I believe that it is possible to plan production to relate it over a broad period to the demand. I think that that is the simple answer. The old technique of dismissing men from the motor industry in the winter belongs

to the bad old times of Toryism. It was abolished in 1945, when there was a Labour Government, and from 1945 to 1951 there was steady employment and planned production throughout the industry.
May I turn to the relevance of the payroll tax to a progressive idea about which the Ministry of Labour knows well and which has been ventilated inside the motor industry by both employers and trade unions? That is the possibility, in order to produce serenity in the industry, which it has lacked for many years, of introducing an annual contract, or at least a six-monthly contract, which will give the worker some security of tenure in his job. Instead of the malaise which has afflicted the motor industry because the worker felt that he would be turned out of his job with the seasonal fluctuation, there would be serenity because he would feel that he had security of tenure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that a payroll tax would interfere with many existing industrial agreements. I believe that it will also interfere with, and possibly stymie, any attempt to achieve that progressive form of contract which is envisaged by the trade union movement, namely, a guaranteed annual contract through which the worker feels that he has security of tenure.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Chancellor tonight will announce, or at least foreshadow, a decision to renounce this fantastic, unworkable and dangerous idea of a payroll tax. Such a tax will merely cause unrest in industry and will undo some of the good work which the Minister of Labour has done in trying to achieve industrial peace, particularly in the motor industry. When I say that I am not only speaking for myself, but am expressing the feelings of the local branch of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Workers in Coventry, which has been seriously worried about this matter.
We all welcome the excellent performance of some motor manufacturers in the export market, but the Minister of Labour will agree that the motor industry is by no means out of the wood. It is true that some specialist cars have


sold extremely well in the United States, but if one looks at the pattern of export sales one sees that the small motor cars, which represent the bulk of the output of the motor industry, have sold in no way as successfully in the United States as have the specialist and sports cars.
I therefore beg the Chancellor to approach this question of the payroll tax with great caution. The motor industry will have to face many difficulties in the coming months and I hope that he will not add to those difficulties by imposing an obligation on employers which will be the equivalent of direction of labour. The concept of direction of labour has evil memories for many trade unionists. If direction of labour is to be restored in a different form in the shape of a payroll tax, I can assure the Chancellor that, far from achieving the industrial tranquility for which the Minister of Labour has been working, we shall enter a new period of industrial unrest and disturbance which must handicap exports and have a most damaging effect on the home market. It will, in short, produce the very opposite of the results which the Chancellor professes to seek.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). He said that he would make a class speech, and, in fact, he did. He went on to talk about his entrenched attitude towards the motor industry, and I shall have some views to express on that later.
I welcome the Budget and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on having introduced it in the way that he did. No speech is fashionable without a reference to the spaceman. I would say that the Chancellor's performance in producing his Budget on Monday was fully up to the space age. Unfortunately, his expenditure has rocketed; it has risen by 5·7 per cent. this year and rose by 7·2 per cent. last year. In my view, insufficient has been said about that in the debate. There has been practically no rise in the cost of living and very few, if any, new commitments have been entered into in the last few years.
I wish to look at our expenditure for a few minutes from three different

angles to see whether we can think of new ideas, not necessarily to restrict expenditure but to be certain that we are getting value for money in this vast amount which we spend. It is a fallacy nowadays, to believe that the amount of Government expenditure should necessarily, and healthily, grow with the growth of the gross national product. The idea is that if the national product is growing by 5 per cent. a year, then public expenditure should grow by at least 5 per cent. I do not necessarily accept that. Many essential services can increase their efficiency in the same way as a very large company can increase its efficiency—and is continually being exhorted to do so. In education, health and the Home Office responsibilities their is room for introducing efficiency methods which would prevent the bill from mounting year by year.
For example, the Home Office estimates have risen by 17 per cent. this year, the Commonwealth and Foreign estimates by 30 per cent. and Trade Labour and Aviation by 22 per cent. I cannot comment on these from personal knowledge, because I do not know the full details which lie behind them, but it is a fallacy that these increases should be welcomed. Nobody can look forward to a reduction in taxation in ten years' time for all sections of the community while we maintain our expenditure at this high level.
We ought to look at the problem from the point of view of how we are to control expenditure rather than to restrict it. I am not suggesting that much of the expenditure is not vital. Indeed, in some cases it should be increased. But I welcome the Chancellor's decision to set up a committee to study the growth of expenditure as a proportion of the gross national product over five years. That is a most interesting development, and I hope that we shall hear more of it from time to time.
I think that we should also look at our additional commitments. Disraeli once accused an hon. Member of thinking that
prosperity is a pack-horse, always ready to be loaded.
Some hon. Members still have that point of view. They take the view that because the Government spend £6,000 million a year, a little extra will make no


difference. These new commitments of expenditure should be scrutinised very carefully in the Cabinet, in the Treasury, and in the House of Commons, to make certain that no new commitment is born unless we are completely happy about it, because once these babies become children they have an alarming habit of growing bigger and bigger. I am certain that contraception is a far more successful means of controlling them than trying to starve them after they have been born. In this connection, it appears that the Cunard baby and the National Theatre baby are about to be born. I hope that they will be the only members of those families and will not be allowed to have brothers and sisters.
The third direction in which we can look at expenditure is the one mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend, that of cheeseparing and saving candle ends. We must continue to do this. We must not think that it is mean, or that it is beneath us to look at every detail of expenditure. I notice, for instance, that the grant to nine museums in this year's accounts and grants to the arts and sciences are up by 7 per cent. That may be justified, but I should like to know why the museums require more money this year. How can we make certain that this year by year increase, even in a period of steady costs, of about 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. is justified and is necessary?
We find this happening even in non-expanding services. For instance, the National Parks Commission costs progressively more each year. The maintenance of Osborne House, in the Isle of Wight, is another example. One has many questions to ask, but few opportunities to get answers.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Arts and Amenities Committees of the Conservative Party, but that group and the Labour group of the same name have for some years been pressing the Chancellor to give more to the arts and more to the museums. In the last year we have been rather successful. That is the explanation of the 7 per cent., and it was long overdue.

Mr. Ridley: I am a member of that group, but I do not in all instances press for more money to spend on all things. That is the difference between the hon.

and learned Gentleman and myself. I am asking only that these things should be examined.
As is said in Lloyds Bank Review, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred yesterday, the control of this expenditure is out-of-date. This point needs further examination, and the only effective control we have seems to be through the Estimates Committee. I hope that it will be possible to still further examine the chance of expanding the Estimates Committee, and of examining a greater number of Estimates. This should be done so to speak under a microscope, and, what is more, it should be done in public, because we do not know what goes on when a thing is done in private, and the public have a right to know that any awkward questions which might be asked are asked, and that all the relevant information has been brought to light.
If we cannot achieve some progress in that direction, my right hon. and learned Friend will have to say, with Lloyd George:
No one need be afraid of any taxes being taken off in my time.
If we permit ourselves no reduction in expenditure, we can look forward in our lives to no reduction in taxation.
We often gaze with envy and interest at the Common Market. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) talked a lot about the economic dynamic which the Common Market has engendered. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) talks about league tables in which he always finds us at the bottom and the members of the Common Market countries doing very much better. The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to bore us with this table, although we recognise that it has a message for us.

Mr. Loughlin: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say "bore"?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, the hon. Gentleman did.
I should like to examine the reasons why the countries in the Six are prospering and going ahead very much faster than we are. Nobody would claim that they have Socialist systems, or that they are relying on nationalisation or


controls for their success. They have as their aims—and the Rome Treaty is there for all to see—the dismantling of internal tariffs and the removal of all internal subsidies in all their industries; the full mobility of labour, capital and management; a complete ending of all restrictive practices by both sides; and, finally, the harmonisation and equalisation of wages, costs, and of social benefits and all forms of fiscal affairs. Those are their objectives, towards which they are making admittedly slow progress. They have not always stuck to the rules. Their progress is slow, but that it what they are trying to do.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument about an upsurge in the economy of the Common Market countries to which the fiscal and tariff changes cannot be related, because many of them have not become operative. The rise in the German economy was due to the fact that for many years the Germans had no arms burden, and that in the case of the French economy there was the Monnet Plan of 1945 for the re-equipment of French industry. It was completely reorganised in a planned way; it was reorganised by the kind of planning which the hon. Gentleman and his friends so frequently deride.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next part of my speech. I assure him that 1945 has no relation to what they have been doing in the last two years, because it is only recently that this dynamic has made itself apparent.
The point is that they know their objectives, and they are progressing towards them. They are undergoing a commercial renaissance. They have a new ideal of what they should be trying to do with their industries, although the regulations have not forced them into that position. They have the objectives which I have already mentioned, the mobility of labour, the end of restrictive practices and the harmonisation of policies throughout the country. They have seen the success which this is bringing them, and they are forging ahead.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish us to emulate this performance, to emulate these ideals, they should improve

efficiency in our factories to make us competitive, to enable us to remove subsidies and tariffs, and to enable us to bring about a similar situation to that which exists in the countries of the Common Market.
It does not matter whether we join the Common Market. If we do join it, it is an obvious and essential policy that we should prepare our industries for that change. If we do not join the Common Market, we must try to compete with the countries in it, and in that case we must go along these lines even quicker than we are doing now in order to be competitive.
It is in that light that I have looked at the Budget. I am convinced by reading one paragraph of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech that he has the same idea at the back of his mind. He said:
The reduction in tariffs, for which we are working, may have a beneficial effect in this respect. Labour relations, standards of management, techniques of selling, are, in some cases, below what is needed in the present day world. Certain industries are still, in my view, handicapped by restrictive practices which are completely out of date. There is much that is good about British industry, but there is quite a lot that is not good enough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April. 1961; Vol. 638, c. 801.]
That is an immensely important declaration of objectives, and it is in this light that I look at the payroll tax, about which so many hon. Members have talked. There is some substance in the criticism that this tax should be selective by areas—excluding those areas where there is no shortage of labour and where, in fact, there may even be marginal unemployment. I hope that it will be possible for my right hon. and learned Friend to improve this weapon and to make it bite harder in areas where there is a high employment density. To use the Financial Secretary's words, £10 a year is the maximum which can be paid per employee under the new proposed tax and this will not bite in the over-employed areas. At the same time, it is too much to put upon employers in the difficult employment districts, who are struggling to keep as many men employed as possible.
It should be selective, and very much higher, and having proposed it I hope that the Chancellor will not be frightened to use it. I would have preferred him


to have used it already. I would have preferred the tax to be imposed from now on instead of the imposition of the Profits Tax, which seems to me to put one more burden on to the backs of industry. We already have an extra fuel tax to absorb, and we are now to have extra Profits Tax, as well as one or two other little things. I am told that the increases in the Budget may well mean another 10s. on the price of a ton of steal. This will not help our exports or our competitive position.
We have shifted the burden of Surtax on to industry. In my opinion, the burden should have been shifted on to consumption. The share which industry has to pay should be paid through the payroll tax rather than Profits Tax. We are working, through G.A.T.T., towards lower tariffs, and in this context we should look again at our system of agriculture and try to phase it towards our possible entry into the Common Market, and also towards a saving of part of the very large subsidy which we now give it.
The Surtax concession must be right. I have no doubt that it is good economics and good social justice. But I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend had been able to couple it with a more painful drive upon expenses, to re-establish the good principle of, "What you have and what you share came out of your own pockets rather than out of the pocket of the firm." Hitherto, it has been impossible for this to come out of people's pockets, but the new proposal provides a lead in the right direction, and this is the ideal moment for a drive against wrong and incorrectly used business expenses.
I should have liked to see the Chancellor move more against restrictive practices on both sides of industry. I welcome the new document on the profitability of the nationalised industries and their commercial obligations. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will succeed in his efforts to simplify taxation and present up-to-date Government accounts. The whole imaginative nature of the Budget seems to indicate that he is aware of the great competition which stands in front of us, either within the Common Market or—if we stay out of it—from the Common Market itself. We must prepare this

country to proceed along the lines on which the Chancellor is leading us, in order to be able to meet this competition in the not too distant future.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I trust that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments, although there is one point of clarification which he might make to the Committee. He was talking about the shifting of the burden on to industry, in the form of Profits Tax. He said that that had resulted in putting up the price of steel by 10s. a ton and that he felt that the burden should have been placed on consumption. I do not know what he means by consumption. If the cost of steel rises by 10s. a ton I can only assume that the Profits Tax has been put on consumption. Perhaps the hon. Member has in mind the fact that it might be placed on the consumption of durable goods. That would be in keeping with the philosophy outlined in the debate and in the proposals and actions of the Chancellor and Minister of Health in recent months.
We cannot consider the Budget proposals apart from the context of the actions taken in recent weeks by the Minister of Health. It is a little ironical, and perhaps tragic, that at half-past twelve this morning we were sitting here debating a Prayer which sought to stop the Government from implementing a proposal which would deny to expectant mothers and babies those welfare foods which the whole medical profession has argued are necessary in the interests of the health of the nation. There we were, debating the saving of £1¼ million, and now we are debating the transference of about £80 million into pockets of people who have already got sufficient, or Who have such a standard of income that they are paying Surtax.
We cannot expect to ensure the necessary co-operation between both sides of industry if we take such action as we did in February, of increasing the industrial workers' insurance contributions by 10d. per week and of compelling those people with whom the workers have most in common—the aged, the sick and the infirm—to pay increased charges for prescriptions, and then, shortly afterwards, tell them that as a result of what


they have done it has been found possible to relieve Surtax payers to the tune of £80 million.
How mad do the Government think we are? How long do they think they can go on fooling the people into thinking that they believe in co-operation with both sides of industry? Do the Government think that I, as a trade union official, am fooled, or will fool my members by persuading them to pursue a policy of wage restraint, as was asked for by the Chancellor during his Budget speech, to enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give £1,700 rebate in Surtax to Dr. Beeching? Is that what I am required to do? Do the Government want me to say to my workpeople, some of whom receive wages of less than £10 a week, that they should be satisfied in the next twelve months to have a 3 per cent. increase in wages, while Dr. Beeching can have £1,700 in one slice—and all the other Dr. Beechings can be treated likewise?
The Government talk about the necessity to increase the export drive, and I agree. Unless we increase our share of world trade the standards of this nation cannot be maintained. That is the responsibility of the Government, but let me tell the Chancellor in no uncertain terms that unless he secures the co-operation of the trade unions and maintains harmony in industry he will not find himself in a position to compete in the export markets, no matter what he does. If this is the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he can create an atmosphere of co-operation with the trade unions in industry so that we may advance in the export drive, he has another think coming.
This is a class Budget. The Government once more are paying off. They paid off the landlords and the brewers, and now they are paying off the Institute of Directors, which made such a wonderful contribution to the election expenses of the Tory Party during the last General Election. They are pursuing the policy, which they have pursued since they came into office, of a redistribution of income in favour of rent, interest and profit and against the policy pursued by the Labour Government of a redistribution in favour of

work income. That is all that this Budget amounts to, simply a class Budget designed to satisfy the people whom a Tory Government represent.
There seems some dubiety in the minds of some right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the primary purpose of that new economic regulator to which we have referred as a payroll tax. But the President of the Board of Trade seemed in no doubt and neither did the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it important to get this payroll tax into a correct perspective. I think that in one sense it will be inflationary and may well prove a factor which will make exports from this country less competitive in the overseas markets. But I wish to deal with its social implications.
During the last few years, when we have been in a semi-recession, we have been able to share the burdens of industry. Instead of pursuing the age-old policy of Tory Governments, and the Tory Party philosophy, we have said that by a reduction in the working week we could continue to maintain almost a full labour force, and so share the difficulties and ensure that not too many people were dismissed from their employment. From the statement of the Financial Secretary this afternoon, I take it that the Chancellor intends to impose this tax quickly. What will happen if he imposes this tax of 4s. a head, which amounts to £10 a year.
Of one thing I am certain. Many employers would desire to share the burden among their workpeople, and would be prepared—although to them as a trading establishment it would be uneconomic—to carry an excess number of workers. But the additional burden imposed upon them by the Chancellor will compel them to dismiss workers instead of continuing the policy pursued in the past few years. The people in industry know that will be the effect. Do the Government think that they will be prepared to sit down and do nothing about it if there is the slightest suggestion of a likely recession in any industry? We on the trade union side say that if there is to be any loss of jobs, it is better that our people should work four, three, or even two days a week. But as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that employers will pay a tax of 4s. a week for every employee—

Sir A. Spearman: Is not the hon. Gentleman arguing against the mobility of labour? If labour is to be discouraged from going where it is needed, and away from where it is not needed, how is there to be a growth in the economy?

Mr. Loughlin: I will deal in a moment with the question of mobility of labour, but, first, there are other aspects to which I wish to refer.
I am now warning the Chancellor. If, as a result of this policy, employers decide that it is not economic for them to maintain the existing arrangements whereby loss of work is shared—if I may use that phrase—does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that we shall stand by and do nothing about it? Does he think that we shall say, "Well, boys, that is all we can do. You can only sign on for the dole"? Not in all cases does it follow that if there is a recession in an industry there are other jobs available in other industries in the area.
I shall deal now with the question of mobility of labour. I prefer mobility of labour, provided it can be carried out, but in many senses that is just a nice-sounding phrase and nothing more. Unless we have the institutions to cater for those who have to be made mobile, we cannot have mobility of labour. We cannot have mobility of labour unless there are houses for the people in the area in which we want them to transfer. We cannot have mobility of labour unless we have the shops, the churches and other physical institutions which make a community. There can be only a limited degree of mobility of labour. It is no use exercising our minds thinking that we can move great numbers of people from one area to another. Before that were done we should have to have another Minister of Housing and Local Government to produce the houses to which those people could go at rents which they could afford to pay.
In some areas we have the problem of pits being closed. There are two such pits in the Forest of Dean. Neither of those pits is economic, but they are being maintained because the National Coal Board, in addition to its normal trading policy, pursues a social policy. Throughout Britain there are pits which are kept open by the Coal Board on the basis of its social policy. Hon. Members

opposite do not like nationalised industries and they do not mind if additional burdens are placed upon them. What effect will this proposal have on the Coal Board? It will mean a further drain on its finances. I cannot imagine those running the Coal Board being prepared to say that because an additional tax of 4s. per head is imposed upon them they must close pits which are uneconomic.
If the Board did so it would cost a lot more money to pursue that policy. Then we might find the President of the Board of Trade exerting himself to get other industries into those areas which need them. From the debates we have had in this House it does not seem that he can exert himself on anything. The President of the Board of Trade seems to think that we have now reached a position in which the Government have done everything that can be done to assist exporters in securing new markets.
When we look at column 1011 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, and read the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, we wonder what is to happen in a few years' time. Is this all that the Government have to offer for exporters? Do they believe that the recent concessions they have made in trying to assist exporters comprise the sum total of what they can do? Do they not consider it necessary at some stage to attempt to anticipate market trends on the Continent and to plan Britain's resources so that we may have alternative goods to go into those markets when our present export commodities are in decline?
If we want to ensure a decent standard of living for the people, we ought to be projecting our thoughts five or ten years ahead. We ought to be seeing what difficulties we are likely to face in export markets and how we can collate necessary information so that we can capitalise to the full the position we shall have in those markets. Not only do we need to know the needs of the markets of the future and to know about new markets, but we need to collate that information with the planning of our industry to see that we have the right type of commodities to replace those which are on the way out. That is the task of the Government. The task of the Government is not to live day by


day, but to plan the resources of Britain to make sure we are able to compete in a more intensely competitive world in the next five or six years.
What we had from the President of the Board of Trade was a disgrace. If the Government have done all they possibly can to assist exports, exporters are now on their own. If that is the philosophy of the Government, heaven help them in the next five years.

6.46 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: In his Budget statement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of increasing concern over the national expenditure and stressed the importance of the Plowden Committee's Report on administrative economy.
My right hon. and learned Friend very rightly insisted that if those economies were to be achieved all those charged with the use of public funds must take a very strict view of their responsibilities and maintain a very high state of efficiency in their daily work. No one, I am sure, would disagree with that. Equally, I am quite sure my right hon. and learned Friend would wish to recognise the consistently high standard of the work which is done by those who actually bear this responsibility, and notably the members of Her Majesty's Civil Service. They are always an easy target for criticism and sometimes, unfortunately, for ignorant abuse, but we know that their integrity and devotion to duty are recognised and admired all over the world.
Civil servants are not by any means highly remunerated. If their morale is to be high and they are to be able to discharge their tasks with the maximum efficiency, it is most important that they should not suffer from any avoidable sense of grievance, particularly about the manner in which they are treated by their employer, the Government, either during their service or after it. I hope and believe, therefore, that hon. Members of the Committee will support me in asking the Chancellor, before he obtains our consent tonight to the expenditure of further large sums of public money, to consider the desirability of meeting a very real grievance which is strongly felt by a particular category of

civil servants including many First World War ex-Service men. This concerns the question of so-called unestablished service in relation to superannuation.
That grievance has received a most remarkable degree of sympathy on both sides of the House, as is proved by the Order Paper. The Order Paper contains a non-party Motion which I had the honour of sponsoring in association with hon. Members from so far apart, both geographically and politically, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). That Motion now bears the names of no fewer than 393 right hon. and hon. Members.
That is by far the largest number of names I have even seen on a Motion in the short time that I have been in the House. I am informed by the Officers of the House that there has been nothing approaching it since the war. They consider that it can only have been very seldom, if ever, that that number has been exceeded in the history of the House—393 Members from all parties.
The Motion reads as follows:
That this House has taken note of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1955 (Command Paper No. 9613), and the observations of the Commission in Chapter XV, paragraph 743, on the subject of the reckoning of unestablished service for superannuation purposes in the Civil Service, to the effect that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding, and it is in fact now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full, and that in the view of the Royal Commission the sole consideration is that of cost; and this House is of opinon that the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to authorise discussions to take place on the Civil Service National Whitley Council with a view to arriving at a reasonable settlement of this long standing problem.
It will be agreed, I think, that the Motion is worded in moderate terms, and I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend will feel that it has been handled, at any rate up to today, in a restrained manner, considering the overwhelming weight of opinion that there is behind


it. Perhaps it might also be a point in favour of the Motion to say that it does not ask for anything now except that the subject shall be tabled for discussion in the Whitley Council.
The rigid refusal of the Government over the past years to allow the matter even to be on the agenda of the Whitley Council has caused vary strong feeling—almost more feeling than the financial aspect itself. These people take it very hardly that they should not be heard. They believe, as most of us do, in natural justice, and they are very concerned that they are not given a hearing. Indeed, they no: unnaturally suggest that one of the reasons why something is not put on the agenda is that there is no good answer to it, and that is a very natural point of view.
As the Royal Commission's Report clearly indicated, the refusal of consideration of the matter can no longer be based on any argument of principle. Any remaining doubt was removed by the "touchstone of fact" that in the 1949 Act the principle was conceded by giving full recognition for service after 1949 and half for service before. So there is now no ground whatever for any suggestion that bringing up the pre-1949s, if I may so describe them, to 100 per cent. would involve any question of principle. Still less is there any ground for the hoary old Treasury excuse that it would cause serious repercussions and implications with all kinds of entirely different people. That kind of pretext was, no doubt, trotted out in 1949. It was not successful then, and I hope that it will not be successful now.
I am most anxious this evening not to prejudice any negotiations which we hope will take place, but I think it right to say, in view of certain most misleading statements which have been circulated in one way and another, that it is quite untrue to suggest that, if there are negotiations, any attempt would be made to press for the uttermost pound of flesh. For example, in respect of the retrospective recalculation of lump sums already paid, I am quite sure that it will be found that there is no intention to press that. Equally, I believe, no one will press that we should go back beyond 1919, which is, in fact, the date to which the half-baked or half-rate arrangement did go back.
As for the cases that should be included and how they are to be dealt with, I should not be at all surprised to find that there would be general willingness to accept a scheme under which, for example, we might first bring in the 70-year-olds, and then perhaps come down by two years at a time so as to bring it down to the 60-year-olds in five years. Something of that kind could well be worked out. After all, it is the old people whom we particularly want to look after, and, in a number of cases, they are the famous old soldiers who fade away, and we want to help them while they are fading away.
There has also been much exaggeration on the possible commitment in the year 2020, 2030, 2040 or 2050. It is only necessary to do a very simple sum to see how absurd that is. No one can be included after 1949, because they are all in already. Anyone who came into the new scheme, say, the youngest now coming into consideration, could hardly have been born later than 1930, and at the end of the century there will not be many of them going very strong.
I venture to think that the give and take which one hopes would be present in these discussions could well reduce the cost to the Exchequer very considerably. It is entirely wrong to say, as has been suggested, that this might cost £30 million. I believe that that is an extravagant figure. Although I have no right to speak for those concerned, because I have no interest except a sympathy for and an understanding of their case, I believe that for well under £10 million a year we could get a scheme worked out, and, one hopes accepted, which would be generally regarded as fair. In any event, I know that I can speak for these people when I say that they are not grasping in this matter. They have served their country well and are entitled to be proud of having done so. All that they ask for is a fair deal.
I know, also, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—I am very sorry that he is not here at the moment, but I am sure that these remarks will be conveyed to him—can be relied upon to be sympathetic in this matter, not only on personal grounds and the background which we all know of him in peace and war, but also in his capacity as a good employer. But sympathy is not enough.
I feel a great responsibility in this matter. When one has to speak, as I am doing, for 393 right hon. and hon. Members of this House, it is a heavy responsibility. I have talked with many of them. No notice could be given that we were to discuss the matter this evening, because we must take an opportunity when it is offered, but I hope that no one will think that the fact that there is not a very large number of hon. Members present in the least means that they do not feel strongly about it. During the last few days, I have talked with many people, and I have found that they were speaking from personal knowledge of cases in their own constituencies. I should also like to say that when I started on this operation, several months ago, I did not have the slightest idea that it would produce such an avalanche of names as it has done. I speak with a great sense of responsibility on behalf of all those hon. Members, irrespective of their parties.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend most sincerely to tell the Committee tonight that he has decided to direct—and all that is required is that he should give a direction; and, whatever anyone else may tell him should or should not be done, he is the one man who can give a direction—for unestablished service now to be considered and given a full and impartial hearing.

Sir E. Boyle: I will, of course, convey what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) has said, but I was unhappy at the distinction which he drew between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury. Any letters which have been sent to hon. Members on this subject from Treasury Ministers have gone out with the full authority of the Ministers concerned. While I will certainly convey to my right hon. and learned Friend what has been said, I should not like the Committee to get the impression that the Treasury holds one view and Treasury Ministers another.

Sir L. Heald: I did not intend to suggest that. The only time I used the word "Treasury" was when I said that there was a hoary old Treasury excuse, and I would associate that with my right hon. and learned Friend as much as with the Treasury.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: There is one aspect of the Chancellor's speech to which I can subscribe. It was when he spoke of his experience as a back bencher and said that he had gone to the Treasury with some preconceived notions about simplifying Treasury matters. If I say that I agree with that part of his speech, that is all I need to say about what the Chancellor said. It may be that distance lends enchantment to the view and that when the Chancellor came to the realisation of his dream he found that it was a nightmare when he tried to simplify the Treasury's methods of taxation.
However, as a mere back bencher, I look upon this matter as the Chancellor once did. I think that the whole system of taxation should be simplified to the greatest possible degree. We have five principal methods by which money is brought into the Treasury. The first is taxation on earned income, wages, salary and interest. The second is taxation on the profits from the operation of large and small businesses. The third is through import duties, which we sometimes call tariffs. The fourth is the indirect taxation method and the fifth comes under the heading of loans and savings.
I am somewhat concerned about one of those aspects and it is that to which the Chancellor and many hon. Members devoted some time—the question of balancing our imports with our exports, a very serious matter.
The Chancellor said nothing about the Outer Seven agreement, which was to be only a temporary phase in our agreement about international trading and commerce. That temporary phase has meant a considerable loss and will mean an even greater loss to some of our basic industries, particularly the paper making and board making industries of Scotland. If this agreement continues to run without appropriate alteration, the paper industry of Scotland, which employs 17,000 workers, will lose its various tariff concessions of 16⅔ per cent., equivalent to £7 million a year. That will ultimately bring ruination to that industry unless the Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade soon make up their minds either to go into the Inner Six or come out of the


Outer Seven and make more use of the resources of the Commonwealth. They have the two alternatives, but they cannot remain as they are. Every day that passes, every moment that passes, impairs the structure of the British economy and leads to drastic effects on the people of Scotland.
This is a very urgent matter and I listened with great care to the Chancellor hoping that he would state his view about it. He did not do so, and I look forward to the Government making some definite declaration in the near future about whether we are to come out of the Outer Seven and develop the Commonwealth, or have an agreement with the Inner Six and develop a united Europe.
One of the Government's proposed methods of raising taxation is a 10 per cent. taxation increase on consumer goods, which the Chancellor will be able to operate in the future. Fundamentally, it is a bad tax. I do not much like indirect taxation at all, but when it is upon consumer goods, it hits the poorest section of the community, old-age pensioners and the unemployed and those with low wages, more than it hits others. It is not so heavy on the shoulders of the well-to-do. We all recognise that, unlike the poorer sections of the community, who have to buy their household requirements from week to week, the well-to-do can stock their households for long periods. They have more than one suit of clothes, of course. Indirect taxation is not good, because it places a heavier burden on one section of the community.
It may be said that there is a luxury aspect to this tax and that it will be levied on drink and cigarettes and other luxury goods. That is true, but the tax will still strike only at the people who actually consume those goods. Those who are not smokers or drinkers or who do not buy other luxuries will not pay their full proportion of tax, and on any ground this tax is fundamentally wrong. Indirect taxation is the worst form of taxation and even a luxury tax falls only on certain individuals.
The Chancellor very quickly skimmed over loans and savings, an important part of the Government's revenue. The Budget does not encourage people to save more and to lend more to the Government. There is no proposal in the

Budget to encourage people to save or to lend money to the Government. What do the Government propose to do to help those people who lent money to the Government by buying War Loan? Is there any hon. Member who has not received letters from old people who lent money to the Government in that way and who now find that their incomes have gradually dwindled and their capital almost gone? It is the Government's responsibility to give confidence to people who are willing to lend to them. They should be fair and equitable to those who lent money in the past, but it is obvious that this is an aspect of Government responsibility that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to shoulder.

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman will read the speech I made this afternoon, he will see that I did not ignore that subject.

Mr. Baxter: Perhaps wisdom dawns slowly on some hon. Members opposite. The Chancellor is doing very little to encourage savings, yet here is where opportunities are being lost, for the savings of the public could be increased to the benefit of the nation.
I cannot understand why the Government have proposed the introduction of a payroll tax, unless it is a red herring drawn across the trail to suggest that while Surtax payers are being given something back, the Government are levying a further tax on industry. Perhaps they are using this method to soften up the public. I cannot believe that the Government seriously propose to operate this payroll tax.
If they are serious, what will happen to the coal-mining industry, where the cost would be about £6 million, and the shipbuilding industry, which is desperate for exports? Is the engineering industry to be levied in this way, thus putting an even greater burden on an industry which already has enough problems in obtaining markets overseas? It is the Government's responsibility to encourage these basic industries and hon. Members cannot be content to see an additional burden placed on industries which already find it difficult enough to get foreign markets. We should be doing our utmost to encourage these industries to expand, rather than to be


overburdened. It is a crime against Britain's basic industries that industry is to be re-rated. It is the Government's duty to see that Britain's industries expand and bloom and become prosperous, not only for the benefit of the owners and shareholders but for the vast majority of workers and the people of this country.
Have apprentices been considered in the drawing up of these proposals? We have heard a lot about the education "bulge" and many lads and lasses will soon be leaving school. There will be no jobs for them and, aware of these facts, the Government should be encouraging industry and business to take up the training of these young people so that we have sufficient manpower and skill for the future. The 4s. payroll levy will not help to do that. In encouraging industry to accept more trainees, the Government will have to look to the smaller businesses. The large building firms, for example, do not employ apprentices, and that example can be repeated in many other industries.
The Government claim that the payroll tax will create mobility of labour. Have they considered that mobility of labour in Scotland has resulted in 27,300 people leaving the country in 1960? With that sort of mobility of labour Scotland cannot afford to lose the best of its manpower—and another tax, such as that proposed, will make the situation even worse. This lack of responsibility is one of the tragedies of this Government.
There is, however, one method by which taxation is both fair and equitable—not a payroll tax or a 10 per cent. consumer goods tax—but a tax levied on each according to his means; the Pay-as-you-earn basis of taxation. This form of tax not only applies to everyone, but helps to curb inflation, and the machinery is already in existence to adjust that tax as the Government see fit. As one who operates this form of taxation in my own business, I know that in the months that lie ahead, should the need arise for a curb on expenditure, curbing it through P.A.Y.E. would assist the economy. The Bank Rate is not sufficient to do the job. The only method of being fair to all section of the community is to spread the burden over the entire working population.
I recognise the fairness and sensibility of some form of capital gains tax, but I also recognise that there is power at the moment under the Acts pertaining to Inland Revenue whereby, if a person seeks to make two transactions of a similar type, the proceeds from those transactions are looked upon as being part of his business. Are these regulations being used to their full extent, especially where the tycoons are concerned? I know only too well that these regulations are utilised against the smaller man, but is the powerful man getting away with it?

Mr. John Hall: I do not think that that applies to ordinary share transactions for the investor or speculator.

Mr. Baxter: That may be so, but I am pointing out that if there are two land or property transactions, Inland Revenue look upon those deals as being part and parcel of the stock-in-trade of the person concerned, and an inspector of the Inland Revenue has a right to make an assessment. Then it is up to the recipient of an Inland Revenue notice of assessment to prove that the transactions were not a part of the recipient's job or business. Thus, the onus of responsibility rests not on the Inland Revenue, but on the person concerned.
Many eminent hon. and right hon. Members have spoken in the debate. I am just an insignificant back bencher. I believe that business and commerce are of paramount importance to everyone in this Committee and to every person in the land. It should be our duty and responsibility to see that a healthy expansion takes place, and we should all be prepared to make sacrifices in some way to accomplish that end. Whether industry is owned by private or public enterprise is a matter for debate and consideration. That is not the fundamental question today. The fundamental question is: are we to expand or contract? If we are to expand, as we must, each one of us must be prepared to sacrifice.
If I were the Chancellor preparing a Budget, my Budget would be different from the one which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented to us. Here are my simple suggestions. First, I would encourage savings and loans to the Government. I will not go into the


details now, although it would be quite simple to do so, because there is no time. Second, I would abolish Purchase Tax on all the necessities of life because it is an unjustifiable tax on any count whatever. Third, I would have a single graduated tax on all incomes, be they earned or unearned. It is our duty to encourage people to invest their money in industry or in other ways, and we should not penalise them when they do that act of saving in their own interests and on behalf of the country. We should encourage them. A new single graduated tax taking into consideration all types of income should be the Chancellor's immediate concern.
Fourth, there should be new regulations—this is my reply to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall)—in respect of all people who make a business out of speculation and capital gains. It should not be out with the wit of man to conceive such a method. If the Chancellor has any difficulty in having his officials work out a suitable system, it is time that he had different officials advising him in the Treasury. There is no doubt about that. If those who are there at the moment find it too difficult, we can offer nominees who would be quite capable of devising very simply a tax method which could be used for that purpose.
Fifth, there should be a maximum stipulated for the expenses of individuals, on a graded basis, and the same should apply to companies. As a small business man with 300 employees, I know quite well how one can draw expenses here and here, but I know very well that there is one rule for one type of business and a different rule for others. The large limited liability company quoted on the Stock Exchange has a better expense allowance than the small limited liability company working in a small way. This should not be so. Why should inspectors of taxes have one law for some and a different law for others? These things require investigation.
Last, but not least, savings could be made in defence. I have no Whip in the House of Commons. I am a more or less independent person speaking tonight. There is another method—the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) mentioned it—whereby the Chancellor could save a considerable

amount of money. The Treasury should ensure that the money spent on the Armed Forces and in preparation for war is examined more carefully. Together with many hon. Members, I had the privilege of listening to Professor Parkinson, the originator of "Parkinson's Law", not long ago. At the end of the meeting, he was asked how he would seek to save certain moneys. His answer was quite simple: in the Defence Estimates there is plenty of room for that. He said that in Singapore there are 10,000 people being used in a more or less obsolete establishment for shipbuilding and repairs looking after three old ships of the British Navy. If that is true—I have no reason to believe that it is not, since no one has contradicted it—and if there is that sort of wastage in the Services, apparent to outsiders as it has been apparent to me in the past, there is ample room for saving £100 million or £200 million of the taxpayers' money.
If the Chancellor had the willpower, the vigour and the determination, he would be able to bring in a Budget which would not wholly satisfy his own side of the Committee but which would satisfy this side and would expand Britain's economy and make us a worthy nation in the years to come.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). At least, he has some fire in his belly and he believes in what he says. When the hon. Member says that those who have lent money to the Government ought not to be swindled and defrauded in the value of their savings as a result of inflation, I entirely agree. When he pleads for sacrifices from us all so that our nation might expand its production, I entirely agree. The hon. Member talked very much like an independent.
The hon. Gentleman said one thing with which I could not agree. He said that we ought to go into the Common Market, and that, if we could not join the Common Market, we ought to leave the Seven. We have certain obligations to the Seven, and we could not in honour walk out on the Seven if we could not join the Six. I agree with him that we should go into the Six, because I believe that what this country needs


above all else is competition—really good, healthy competition. The businessmen of this country have had it far too easy for far too long, and we need competition in both capital and labour. One thing that the Common Market would do for us would be to let the cold chilling winds of competition blow through our business life, driving out of business the inefficient among both employers and workers.
At the beginning of this week, the Evening Standard said that there would be a blistering and prolonged attack by the Opposition on the Government because of their Budget proposals. A few moments ago, there were six hon. Members on this side of the Committee and seven on that. I looked up, and even the Press Gallery was almost empty. Even the public were not interested.

Mr. Loughlin: Mr. Loughlin rose—

Mr. Osborne: No; the hon. Member has had long enough already.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member knows that both parties have meetings at this time.

Mr. Osborne: The prophecy about a blistering attack has not come true. It was not true yesterday or the day before. There have been fewer than 20 hon. Members in the Committee from time to time.
The other reflection I have after listening to most of the debate, a sad one for a back bencher, is this. I sometimes wonder what good we do sitting here and making speeches. I wonder whether anything we say affects the Treasury bosses who really rule our country. I wonder whether we do any good in that way, though I suppose that if we have something in the blood it has to come out.

Mr. Houghton: When will the hon. Member defend the Budget and stop being so self-righteous?

Mr. Osborne: I hope that I was not being self-righteous. I always thought that that came from the other side of the Committee.

Mr. C. Pannell: Mr. C. Pannell rose—

Mr. Osborne: No. Please let me get on. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has just walked in.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member is often away abroad for weeks and weeks on his own business, going to China and elsewhere. Then he comes back and lectures us about the Chamber being empty on the few occasions when he is present.

Mr. Osborne: I was making a reflection upon what the Evening Standard had said about the prospect of a blistering and prolonged attack. I am sorry if I have caused irritation.
I welcome the Budget for many reasons. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend is to tackle business expenses. There is a good deal of scandal in that respect, and I hope that he will clear it up.
In my view, the most important proposal in the Budget is the one which has received the least attention. My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to create a £500 million surplus, and I regard this as the key to the whole Budget. I hope that he gets it, and, what is more, I hope that he keeps it. I wish it were double. Moreover, I hope that he will now warn all the spending Departments that he will not allow any Supplementary Estimates at all during the coming year. If he would do that, he would do more to help our economy than he could by any other single measure.
Last year, the Supplementary Estimates amounted to £246 million. Will my right hon. and learned Friend now say to all the spending Departments that they must live within their own Estimates, within their income, and tuck away the £500 million surplus so that he will have it at the end of the year not merely budget for it and hope to have it? He would do a great deal for us if he did just that.
I recognise that the overall policy which decides how the money shall be spent must be the result of joint Cabinet responsibility. However, if the Chancellor—I hope that I am not out of place in saying this—said now that, if the spending Departments do not keep within the limits of their own Estimates, he will resign, I think that he would get his own way and we should have a curtailment within the spending Departments of the extravagances which many of us think is possible. The Chancellor


is responsible for providing the money. If he said that the spending Departments could not have any more and that, if they wanted to change their policy slightly this way or the other, they would have to make economies within their own Departments to pay for them—in other words, if he made them live within their incomes—he could crack the whip over them which we in the Committee are unable to do.

Mr. G. Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into account the experience of the Minister of Aviation, who, when he was Chancellor, did exactly this over £50 million and who has now re-entered the Government when expenditure now is about £500 million?

Mr. Osborne: I do not think that any Government could stand a second Chancellor departing on this issue. I say this seriously. We can talk as much as we like, but we back benchers have no control over Government expenditure. We have our debates, but the Treasury and the spending Departments go on in their own way. The only person who can control and limit Government expenditure is the Chancellor.
The function of the back bencher has completely changed in the last fifty years. Previously, we were the guardians of the public purse. Now we are the people who urge the Treasury to spend more and more on pet subjects which affect our constituencies, or in which we are particularly interested.

Mr. Richard Marsh: Surely the hon. Member has the right to vote against the actions of the Government if he feels so strongly about them.

Mr. Osborne: That was equally true when the Opposition were in power. I was in the House from 1945 to 1950 when similar protests were made by hon. Members opposite, some of whom are now sitting on the benches opposite. This is true of all parties and Governments.
Today, the back bencher has little or no control over Government expenditure. It is the Treasury, and the Treasury alone, which can stop the spending Departments coming along with inflated Supplementary Estimates and asking for more money. I have

been on the back benches for sixteen years and I have had a long time in which to watch various Chancellors of both parties operating. Nearly all Budgets are ruined by the Supplementary Estimates. If the Chancellor said to the spending Departments, "During this year you will have no more money; you have to live within your Estimates", the £500 million surplus for which he is budgeting would be there and it would bring to our economy the degree of deflation which I think is necessary. It is the one thing that will save us.
In past years, both jobs and profits have been too easy to get and too easy to earn. What we require is a rather more difficult time in which we live, a slight difference in the atmosphere. I think that on both sides of industry generally things have been too easy. We have become soft. I do not believe that a soft nation will easily survive in a tough world. That is what the Romans discovered 2,000 years ago.
We have honoured all the promises that we made in 1951 to get rid of the then Government and to win power, except one. We promised that we would mend the hole in the purse. Instead of doing that, it has become bigger. That is why I am preaching Government economy to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I remind him that, whereas, in 1939, the £ was worth 20s., by 1945 its purchasing value had dropped to 12s. 7d. In 1951, when we made our promise, it bad dropped to 8s. 11d. Today, it is worth 7s. 2d. That is not mending the hole in the purse. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring back honest money. I want him to honour the 1951 promise. If he is to do that, he must make the nation live within its income. It is no good the Government appealing to the private individual or to the nation as a whole to live within their incomes if the Government are all the time presenting Supplementary Estimates and are spending money like water.
The way in which fixed interest bearing investors have been treated in the last thirty years in scandalous. A few days ago I asked a Question about how much stock carried a fixed rate of interest. I was astonished to find that there was £43,000 million worth. As,


since 1939, the value of the £ has dropped from 20s. to 7s. 2d., the owners of those securities—building societies, trustee savings banks, National Savings certificates, and so on—have been robbed and swindled out of £28,000 million worth of value.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Gentleman is right in what he is saying, but does not he agree that particularly scandalous is the fact that the Government should have invested all the National Insurance contribution money in the gilt-edged market?

Mr. Osborne: I agree. It is high time, even to the point of sacrifice, that we brought back honest money and stopped swindling those people who put their money into Government securities in order to support the Government. As I see it, the way to do it is for the Treasury to say to the spending Departments, "This is your limit. You will have no more".
I now wish to make one or two observations on the Economic Survey. I remind hon. Members of the four important facts in the Economic Survey which show our position in 1960. Production was stagnant. At the beginning of the year the figure was 120 and at the end of the year 120. To produce that stagnant amount of wealth we paid ourselves in salaries and wages £900 million more to do the same work. We spent on ourselves, consumer expenditure, £700 million more while producing the same wealth.

Sir E. Boyle: What my hon. Friend is saying will not do. I agree that production did not increase last year, but over the whole year production was 6 per cent. above the previous year. It is that figure that we must take into account when considering the movement of prices of income. It is not a fair comparison to say that production was flat over the year and income increased.

Mr. Osborne: I agree, but it is said in the Economic Survey that during the second three-quarters of the year production was static. The increase came about during the first three months. In the second half of the year exports were also static.
As I have said, we paid ourselves £900 million more to produce the same amount of wealth. We spent on ourselves £700 million more. These are figures in the Economic Survey. We borrowed, personal debts, another £500 million to do it. This is the way to ruin. We are borrowing more, we are spending more and paying ourselves more but are not producing any more. Is it any wonder that it is difficult to sell our goods abroad when their prices are comparatively high? This is the key to the whole matter. People keep saying, "Why do not we export more?" We do not do so primarily because our prices are too high. Our prices are too high because we are paying ourselves too much to produce what we want to sell. I want my hon. Friend to speak to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor about these issues.
In this evening's paper, we see that Lord Chandos, who was a distinguished Member of this House, has just been telling his shareholders and his employees that as he, one of our greatest industrialists and a man for whom we all had a high regard when he was in this House, sees the position, the prospects for our exports next year are worse than ever. He is saying that his great industry has reached the point when it cannot absorb any more extra costs without affecting the prices at which it must sell abroad. That will make it even more difficult for us to pay our way.
Let me give one other figure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will remember. Last year, the adverse trade balance was £344 million and the invisible income had fallen from £229 million two years ago to £22 million. There is no sign of that invisible income increasing again. Our position is not good. It is bad. It is unpopular to say so, on both sides of the Committee. The only crime of a politician, on either side, is to say the bitter economic truth that the knaves on the opposite side, which ever side it may be, twist to lose votes for the other party. The only thing that matters in politics is that one does not lose votes for one's side. It is not that one speaks the truth as one sees it.
I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would try to do what the late Sir Stafford Cripps did in 1948–49, when we were


faced with this same problem. He got the F.B.I., the chambers of commerce and the trade unions together and explained the position to them patiently and for a long time. He appealed for restraint in wages, in salaries and in dividends and he got a good reply from both sides of industry.
This is the most urgent need today, I feel in my bones that if the Chancellor would follow the steps of Sir Stafford Cripps in that example, he would get a favourable reply from both sides of industry; but it is no good preaching to the workers that they must show restraint in wage demands unless there is restraint in dividends.

Mr. Houghton: Does the hon. Member think that after this Budget, the Chancellor would have the same moral authority in making that appeal as Sir Stafford Cripps had in 1948?

Mr. Osborne: That is the last point I want to make. Yes, I do. [Laughter.] I beg hon. Members opposite not to laugh until they have heard the argument. They have bitterly attacked the proposal to increase the Surtax level to £5,000. They have attacked it largely on the basis of equality because it is unfair. The policy of hon. Members opposite is one of equality. That is what Socialism is about, as I have read many times. From a social viewpoint and from the point of view of justice, hon. Members opposite say that the Surtax proposals are unfair and contain no sense of equality. I remind hon. Members opposite that the Surtax position has not been altered since 1920, when, basically, the £2,000 level was fixed.
Concerning equality, I was impressed by something that I read in an aeroplane when flying last October from Canton to Shanghai. The Communist authorities gave out the usual highly-coloured magazine, printed beautifully in English, and I took the following extract from a Soviet Union document, No. 126, dated 1960, which I pass on to right hon. and hon. Members opposite:
Socialism in the true scientific sense of the word, as distinct from the Philistine's interpretation of it, admits of no levelling of incomes. In a Socialist State, the principle is payment according to work done.
This is not to be laughed at. This comes from the Mecca of Socialism. It continues:

Those who do more for society get more in return.
That is the best defence that I have found for what the Chancellor is doing in his Surtax proposals. Whilst there are exceptions, I agree, on the whole the men who get big incomes earn them. They have to work very hard for them and they take great responsibilities in earning them.

Mr. Houghton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Communist?

Mr. Osborne: No. I am using the home of the pure doctrine of Socialism, to refute—

Mr. Loughlin: That is not true. The hon. Member is mixed up.

Mr. Osborne: I am using the doctrine which I brought back from Communist Russia, which claims to be the home of pure Socialism, to destroy the arguments with which hon. Members opposite have attacked my right hon. and learned Friend over his Budget proposals.
In Peking, I picked up a booklet, printed in English, which contained Mao Tse-tung's doctrine on this issue. I commend this to both sides of the Committee, for what it says about China applies to this country, and I beg of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to preach this gospel. This is Mao Tse-tung's doctrine:
If we want to see China rich and strong"—
that is exactly what we all want our country to be, rich and strong—
we must be prepared for several decades of intensive effort, which will include, amongst other things, carrying out a policy of building our country through hard work and thrift"—
that is the old gospel of Cripps—
and of practising strict economy and combating waste.
If the Treasury would insist upon those things in the spending Departments, and would set an example to industry and to the private individual, it would get a finer response than it realises.

Mr. Loughlin: May I correct the hon. Member? We do not accept the concept of Socialism that is practised in the Soviet Union. I am not criticising Russia's concept. Has the hon. Member ever heard of the precept of British Socialism,
From them according to their abilities, to them according to their needs"?

Mr. Osborne: Of course I have heard that. But the document which I happened to see last October, on the way to Shanghai, puts forward another version on Socialism and rather takes away some of the indignation which has been expressed on the benches opposite against the Chancellor's proposals.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward J. Milne: I want to begin by mentioning the point raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) at the start of his speech by drawing attention to the sparse attendance during certain of the Budget debates. This was a little unfortunate, because while the hon. Member was raising the point, I asked one of my hon. Friends who the hon. Gentleman was, because although I have been an hon. Member of the House for only about four months I had not seen the hon. Member sufficiently often to be able to recognise him at a glance.
When I discovered who the hon. Member was, I wanted to pay my belated thanks to him. As a youngster in the Labour Government, giving lectures and doing propaganda work, I found that, to put it bluntly, the hon. Member for Louth was often a rich source of quotations to use to "blow the gaff" on Tory-ism. Whilst I say "belated thanks", I am also grateful to the hon. Member for doing the same thing tonight. I am certain that he will not expect me to follow him in his meanderings from Peking westwards, leftwards, rightwards and so on, during his speech, which had a certain amount of value and of merit.

Mr. C. Osborne: I thank the hon. Member.

Mr. Milne: I say that sincerely and in no way deprecatingly.
In this four-day debate, two points have emerged that are bound to attract the attention of somebody who, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is dealing with his first Budget in the House of Commons. Questions of Surtax and the mobility of labour have been bandied about a great deal on the benches opposite. The claim that the Surtax concession has been made to increase exports has been more or less exploded.
If that were correct and if the argument is true that people who do the heavy, difficult and responsible jobs in

industry are entitled to their reward in the shape of the concession which the Chancellor has given them, surely it is equally reasonable for those who turn the wheel, the people who do the work in the factories, workshops and other places where the goods are made, also to be given concessions.
In addition, the families of those people who are entitled to the same sort of benefits that accrue from the increased wage packet of the wage-earner or breadwinner in the family as are the families of those in the higher wage bracket. The unfortunate thing about the Budget, however, is that the concessions made by the Chancellor have been filched in the previous six months from precisely that working section of the community.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, unfortunately, is not present. A distinguished predecessor of mine once threatened the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one day he would have a Ministry of his own. He was then dealing with the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as Foreign Secretary being in the shadow of the Prime Minister. I think that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer now the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still very much in the shadow of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is so accustomed to parading around the country, mouthing platitudes and election slogans, that he allows the Chancellor, at this stage, to be the centre of attraction, but the Prime Minister will move in later when any cheers and praise are accruing.
Then there is the question of the mobility of labour. There have been one or two interventions from hon. Members opposite on this subject. In my constituency, and in the north-east of England particularly, the question of the mobility of labour is not a problem. What we are troubled and worried about is that the Government, who have been in power for the last ten years, have failed to direct, attract, or divert industry into the areas of high unemployment in order to give people jobs.
When we talk in terms of increasing our exports, obviously the industries which are exporting goods can find the labour they want by transferring themselves to the places where there is high unemployment. The type of mobility


that worries my people is the thought that they and their families in the very near future—and thousands of them have already had to do it—will have to seek jobs in the already overcrowded areas of the Midlands and of London. This Budget has signally failed to tackle this problem or to pay any concern to it.
If the Chancellor were sincere in his statement that exports would expand and that Britain would take its rightful place in a challenging, competitive world, he and the Government would lay down policies to ensure that every available man, woman and child able to work was given useful employment. I say "every man, woman and child" because young people in my area are leaving school without the prospect of employment in the area in which they and their families reside.
I have mentioned the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There have been two big occasions in the political life of the Chancellor—Suez and his Budget of 1961. The decision, the attitude and the action of the Chancellor on each of those big occasions sprang from the same source, a complete inability to understand the position and the rôle of Britain in the second half of the twentieth century. After ten years of Tory rule in Britain, that is still the supreme tragedy. In the most challenging decade in British industry, when the rest of the world has been outstripping us in many aspects of trade and commerce, we have had a Government completely unfitted to make us a great industrial nation. I think that that is a suitable commentary on the type of Budget that we have been given.
I have been surprised that the hon. Member for Louth and other right hon. and hon. Members opposite have referred to 1945–51. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is very fond of saying, "We are doing it, and a Labour Government did it in the years when they were in power." Are they so thoroughly devoid of knowledge of the times in which we then moved? Is there any reasonable person in Britain, or in this Committee at the moment, who would make a comparison between the position in the years that followed the Second World War and the position now after ten years of Toryism in Britain?
Rightful tribute has been paid to the moral stature and courage of Sir Stafford

Cripps as a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer during the six years following the most devastating war in history, and a period when the ordinary folks in this country began to count for something. We were then able to tackle our tremendous economic problems without making drastic inroads into the living standards, of the British people. The reason that we have lost sight of that vision and failed to travel that road is because the eyes of this Government have been fixed on the need for profits and not on the hopes and aspirations of the British people.
What is to be found at the background of the broad canvas of the Budget proposals? When industrial workers ask for wage increases they are fiercely resisted and, in the cultured accents of clubland, we have been told that the thing to do is to "treat them mean and keep them keen". That is the type of response made to the desire of these people to increase their standard of living, but when it comes to the Surtax payers and the financial journals preceding Budget day begin to fly kites and put out suggestions of Surtax relief, we are not told, as the workers are told, that the economic situation is so grave that increases should not be given.
The Surtax payers were told, "You are not working hard enough but we know that you can do better and we suggest that the tax reliefs that we shall give you will possibly do the job". Those who look at the figures will realise the manner in which the British people have been hoodwinked at three General Elections which the party opposite was able to win. Almost without exception, the Surtax concessions in the industries covered by those concessions exceed by a considerable figure the weekly wage rates paid to the workers, yet the Leader of the House finds himself able to talk about "the opportunity State."
If we on this side of the Committee are to show our gratitude to the Chancellor, as many hon. Members opposite have done, we must confine that gratitude to one point. During the 1955 General Election, Sir Anthony Eden coined the phrase, "The futuree beckoning with a golden finger." We now realise in this context precisely what he meant. Figures have been advanced to demonstrate that as a result of the


Budget the British people are better off than they have ever been.
I should like to apply this yardstick to national prosperity at the moment. This fallacy of an affluent society must be examined in the light of present conditions and the difference between what the people should have and what they have, and between what they have and what they could have if our economy and industry were geared to their needs. Those differences are greater today than at any time in our history. One should not start comparing the present day with 1914 and 1938. One should look at the tremendous increase in the nation's productive capacity and the standard of living which the people ought to be enjoying as a result. If one does this, one realises precisely what ten years of Toryism have done to the country.
The President of the Board of Trade said on Tuesday that the Budget promoted social justice and helped to solve the country's economic problems. The right hon. Gentleman also used the phrase:
Merit is entitled to its reward, as need is entitled to its care."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 999.]
I agree wholeheartedly with that quotation, except that it does not apply to this Budget. The question of merit has been confined to a small section of the community, and the question of need being entitled to its care was thrown out of the window when the Minister of Health brought in the prescription charges and the other attacks which he made on the people's standard of living.
We are, therefore, reaching a stage where the Government are finally discredited in the eyes of the people. They are even discredited in the eyes of those who returned them to power in 1959. The stigma of their deeds and misdeeds will remain in the memories of their fellow-countrymen long after they have ceased to exercise power and a Government more fundamentally matched to the nation's needs have taken their place.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I listened, as the Committee has done, with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member

for Blyth (Mr. Milne). I had the impression, from its tenor, that he was very quickly picking up the error into which all politicians fall in the House of Commons, of forgetting that he has been appointed to this place and of thinking that he has been annointed.
I was particularly struck by one phrase in his speech which I took down. The remark made me gasp a little. He referred to action taken by the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 and spoke of the things that they had been able to do "without grasping inroads on the standard of living of the British people." It made me gasp because I remembered that the real value of wages fell in the last period of the Socialist Government whereas the real value of wages has risen consistently under the present Government.
I could not understand what the hon. Member meant by saying that the Labour Government were able to do these things "without grasping inroads", the inference being that there had been grasping inroads under the present Government.

Mr. Milne: I did not say "grasping". I said "drastic".

Mr. Hall: That does not make a great deal of difference to what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Milne: There is a difference between "annointed" and "elected".

Mr. Hall: One great disadvantage of speaking on the last day of the Budget debate is that everything that can be said about the Budget has been said not once, but a number of times. Speakers from the Opposition benches have concentrated largely on attacks on the Surtax relief and, in general, on both sides of the Committee, the concentration has been mainly on the payroll tax proposals and on exports. I do not think, however, that anybody has used the quotation from the late Mr. Edmund Burke, who said:
To tax and to please no more than to love and be wise is not given to man.
I am sure that the Chancellor has realised that, after listening to criticisms from both sides of the Committee of the taxes which he proposed to take off and those he proposed to put on.
I remember that in my maiden speech about nine years ago I gave a quotation from Colbert, who wrote:
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to procure the greatest quantity of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing.
The Chancellor will have realised by now that there is another art in taxation, that of reducing the plucking of some over-plucked geese so as not to attract the hissing of the remainder of the geese. The Chancellor did not find it very easy to do that with his Surtax remissions.
I have been engaged for many years in tabling Questions on Surtax and I welcome the remission because it represents a long overdue piece of fiscal justice and removes some of the anomalies and absurdities of the existing tax scale. I had always known that the Surtax scale was a bit ridiculous, but I did not realise how ridiculous it was until I tabled a Question in February, 1956, when I asked what salary the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time would need to equal in purchasing power, after tax, the salary of his predecessor in 1938. I was staggered by the answer given by the then Financial Secretary, who is now Minister of Housing and Local Government. He said that the figure was £75,000 a year. That brought home to me the complete absurdity of the Surtax levels at that time. It was reinforced recently during an interchange of questions across the Floor of the House when the appointment of Dr. Beeching was announced. It emerged, after a great number of interruptions from the Opposition, who did not seem to want to hear the answer, that the £24,000 a year salary to be paid to Dr. Beeching would yield a net income of only about £6,500, which means, in terms of 1938 values, an income of about £2,000 a year net.
To give Dr. Beeching even that income the Government had to increase the salary of the office by £14,000 a year so that he would have a net increase over his predecessor of about £1,800 a year. Those figures show how distorted the tax system is today.
In December, I asked what the Surtax figure should be if it was adjusted to compensate for the fall in the value of money as against the figure in 1927, when Surtax was reorganised in the Finance Act of that year. The answer

was that the figure should be £5,000. Taking into account the earned income relief now allowed against Surtax, that figure is about equivalent to the one we are discussing in this Budget. Thus, we have waited from 1927, when the Finance Act introduced Surtax as we now know it, until 1961 to restore the position to what it was then. That does not seem to me to be a very great or extravagant concession to make to Surtax payers as a whole.
I do not believe that the Surtax change will have a great effect on exports. We may get a marginal effect on them, and also an effect on productivity and the effort put in by people throughout the country. It will, however, do several other useful things. It will make it much easier to persuade senior executives to move from one place or one firm to another, especially when they are called upon to go into industrial areas which are perhaps less pleasant than the areas in which they are now living.
No doubt many hon. Members have the same sort of problem that I have faced in trying to get a man, earning £4,000 a year, to move from a pleasant part of the south of England to a Welsh industrial valley or to the North. One cannot give him a net increase in income which makes it worth while for him to uproot his family and take them to an area where they do not want to live.
The change will also help to persuade executives already earning considerable salaries to undertake greater and more arduous responsibility. I can give an example of this. Not long ago I tried to persuade an executive, a first-class salesman, to undertake new responsibility which would mean his spending much longer abroad then he had previously done. It meant greater responsibility and worry, and being away from his family for long periods. The salary offered him was another £1,000 a year, but the net increase from that extra amount was so small that he was very reluctant to accept.
He did accept the new responsibility from a sense of duty and desire to help the company in developing an export market, but it gave him no adequate return for his greater efforts and responsibility, and left him with a sense of frustration and injustice in the feeling that this tremendous additional effort he


was making could not be rewarded more adequately. That has been the experience with many other such people.
The raising of the Surtax level will also help to cure the "expenses racket", as it is described. So often, to give an executive a net increase, recourse has been made to all sorts of Income Tax avoidance—to put it no higher—and one of the reasons why the expenses racket has grown is that many people have felt a great sense of injustice in being prevented, by the tax system, from earning a fair return for their efforts. This change will help to remove that attitude, and to prevent what I might describe as the caviare luncheon and the bread and cheese supper economy—the caviare luncheon on expenses and the bread and cheese supper at home with one's wife and family.
Having welcomed the Surtax concession, I cannot give unqualified approval to the other parts of the Budget. The Conservative Central Office publishes the Weekly News Letter, which I commend to hon. Members opposite because it has a lot of valuable information they would otherwise miss. In last week's issue, there was a quotation from a speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer ten years ago, in speaking on the Finance Act of that year, when we were in opposition. These were the tests which he was applying to the Budget:
Is it a spur to an increase in prices or in costs of production, distribution or in the cost of living? Is it an incentive to effort and production; or is it an incentive to saving?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1886.]
Those were the tests which my right hon. and learned Friend said, ten years ago, that we should apply to a Budget. Curiously enough, the present Budget answers and meets all those tests. The new taxes will act as a spur to an increase in prices, to increased cost of production and distribution, and also, I think, to the cost of living. At the same time, the Surtax change will act as an incentive to production, and also, perhaps, as an incentive to saving. On the other hand, the increase in the Profits Tax may be a disincentive to company saving. Thus, in a remarkable, and, I am quite sure, unintended fashion, my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget

meets all the tests which he enunciated ten years ago.
The payroll tax has been warmly criticised by both sides, and has not met with a great deal of approval. I understand that it is claimed that it will be an economic stabiliser and may lead to economy in the use of labour. The first claim, that it will act as an economic stabiliser, is over-optimistic. I doubt whether the effect will be felt in time to have any worthwhile check on inflationary tendencies in the economy. It will be six to twelve months before the effect of such a tax would be felt.
The second claim is that it may lead to economy in labour, but it is bound to be very uneven in its effect. In my constituency, I have a number of small firms in the furniture trade and others, and many craftsmen firms. Small firms with 10 to 30 employees have no room for flexibility of labour and cannot reduce their manpower to any extent. Nor can craftsmen firms do so. Schools are very unlikely to be able to reduce their labour, either of teachers or anyone else. Can hospitals economise in labour? Perhaps they may be able to do so on the administrative side, which the medical boys claim is overstaffed. Then there are the local authorities; and what about employees such as domestic helps?
One can think of private, public and industrial undertakings which will find it quite impossible to reduce their labour forces. Industry can pass the cost of this on to the consumer, and undoubtedly will. Non-industrial undertakings cannot do so. The worst thing about this payroll tax is that it does not distinguish between the high labour content and low profit margin undertakings and the low labour content and the high profit margin undertakings.
I can give an example from a firm whose accounts I looked at only a day or two ago. It is a firm employing about 650 people and if the payroll tax were put on to the full amount that would mean an additional imposte for this firm of about £6,700 a year. The firm is making a profit of £52,000 a year, so that the additional tax would represent about 12½ per cent. of its profit before taxation. That is a very high additional cost to have to bear. This firm is trying to export and about 15 per cent. of its turnover goes to exports and it is trying to build up


that figure to 25 per cent., but that is very expensive.
If this weapon is to be retained, it should be more selective and it should be definite and not vague. The threat of this weapon hanging over industry is bad. Any firm making a tender for a long-term contract is bound to take into account the possibility that it may have to pay this tax, and it will include that in its costing. It is far better to be definite and to say that the tax is to be imposed and not to hold it over industry as a threat. If it is to be imposed, it should be associated with much greater encouragement to develop automation and produce labour-saving machinery and so on, more encouragement than is given in the Budget which merely leaves the investment allowances as they are without doing more about it.
There were a number of other topics which I wished to raise, but I am certain there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak before the debate is wound up, so I will come immediately to the subject of exports. I have said that Surtax will not have more than a marginal effect upon exports, but I cannot see anything in the Budget which will appreciably help the export problem. On the contrary, so far as I can see, the proposed additional taxes will make industry's position in the export markets more and not less difficult—the addition of the payroll tax and the additional tax on heavy oils, which, for a company I was studying at random today, will cost another £6,500 in a full year. Those things will make our competitive position overseas not easier, but much more difficult.
I know that much of the problem of selling overseas is not a problem for the Government to solve. The Government do not export. They can produce an atmosphere which helps concerns which are exporting, but they do not do so themselves. Much of our problem lies in the lack of aggressive selling by our own industrial concerns, often lack of imagination and a sense of complacency.
Above all—and this has been mentioned once or twice in the debate—we have one overriding problem in a nation which, at least on the face of it, appears to be prosperous. It is that a prosperous nation with a high standard of living

tends to become soft, physically, mentally and spiritually, and to lose the incentive or desire to go out and fight for business in the markets of the world. That is one of the snags we are up against.
I have one suggestion which can help in the export drive. We should introduce a market development allowance, a percentage allowance for special development expenses on export turnover achieved in a new overseas market and allowed for the first three years of that development. We could allow a lower market development allowance for export turnover in existing markets, where the company was already trading, or in the new markets after the expiration of the initial three years on the higher allowances.
It may be that that would be against the G.A.T.T. in that form. I do not know, but even if it is, then it is time that we negotiated a change in the G.A.T.T. It may also be argued that our competitors would follow suit. It would not matter much if they did. It would not remove the effect of the tax incentive on our exporters, but merely put our overseas competitors on the same basis as our companies. That is the competition we would have to face. We have to meet competition, and sooner or later the time will come when we will have the Common Market and will have to meet intensive competition from overseas. We will have to learn to meet it, because it is only by meeting competition that in the long run we will be able to survive.
I want, finally, to refer to financing National Insurance. I have said this before, but I think that the time has now come when we can no longer try to finance our social services through the flat-rate weekly contributions, as we now do. This cost must be included in the fiscal system in one form or another, either merged with the existing form of direct taxation on incomes, or as a separate social service tax. It can no longer be carried, even in part, by the weekly contribution, because that places far too great a burden on those people who, generally speaking, are least able to afford it.
Not long ago, I asked whether the pension of the 10s. widow could be increased. I was told that it could not


be, even though it would cost only £2¼ million, because to do so would be unfair to those widows who, for one reason or another, even now, have no pension at all. From time to time, and even in this Budget, we have given unequal benefits to certain people, and I see no reason why we should not increase the pension of the 10s. widow at least to compensate her for the fall in the value of money since that pension was first introduced. I commend that suggestion to the Chancellor and perhaps he would like to pass it on to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
There are many other things which I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee, but I will exercise a self-denying ordinance and sit down so that other hon. Members will be able to speak.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) began by making our hearts bleed for the poor Surtax payer at the £24,000 level. It is time we stopped this nonsense. We have heard just about enough of the tragedy and heartache which afflicts these poor souls struggling along on £10,000, £15,000, or £20,000 a year.

Mr. John Hall: No one suggested that it was tragic or heartbreaking.

Mr. Marsh: I do not pay Surtax, but I should be perfectly willing to swop my non-Surtax income with the income of any hon. Member opposite who pays Surtax and be prepared to pay his Surtax. The majority of people who pay Surtax are among the section of the population which is at least far from being the worst treated section.
The hon. Member went on to suggest that there was a need to provide incentives to British businessmen to seek new markets overseas. That is very important, because one of the things which is wrong about the Budget is not just one aspect of it, but the whole attitude in the country which has become fat, lazy and complacent in spite of the difficulties of competition with which it is faced.
It is time that it was pointed out that there are large sections of British business and industry which could do much better than they are doing and which could make

a much more positive effort to seek new markets overseas instead of sitting back waiting for trade and business to come to them like manna from heaven.
We always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), I think that every young Socialist in the present generation has learned to value the speeches of the hon. Member for Louth and to write them down in notebook and quote them at meetings almost ad infinitum.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned what has been apparent to us—this lack of interest throughout the Budget debate. We have reached the position where, after eleven years of Tory Government, the country has sunk into a period of economic stagnation and everyone accepts that this once great industrial power—there is no need to refer to league tables—is today putting up probably the poorest performance in the world among the highly industrialised countries. What is so serious is not only that the situation exists, but that people have come to accept it and that nobody seems to care very much.
After eleven years of Conservative Government the only thing about which we can be proud is that industrially we are ahead of Belgium and Luxembourg. This is a matter which people of all political opinions should stop to consider and then ask where we are going. The serious aspect of the Budget is that it ignores our position and produces no alternatives and no remedies. For example, there is no alternative in the Budget to the problem of productive stagnation. We have a Budget which hands out a little bit which quietens the 1922 Committee, which quietens a few Government supporters, which ties up a few loose ends, but which is no nearer to meeting the problem this year than it was last year.
We are faced with ever-growing competition from the Soviet Union, from Western Germany, from Japan and from every industrialised country in the world, yet the Government sit there contemplating their political navels without any idea of where to look for a solution.
As one would expect with a Conservative free-enterprise Government, it is clear that they have no idea of economic


priorities. We continue to jog along complaining bitterly about the lack of progress in the export field. It is rather like religion in the Christian Church. Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury takes a dim view of sin, Her Majesty's Government think that we ought to do something better in the export field, but nobody gets down to doing anything apart from odd speeches by the President of the Board of Trade. We worry about exports, yet we concentrate on consumer services. We worry about exports, yet our investment in the metal-producing and chemical industries, the fields in which we could find markets overseas, is far from satisfactory.
This is the real problem which always faces a Conservative Government. They cannot decide Whether to radically re-examine their approach to our economic affairs. Because of this threat of economic competition, which gets worse each year and from which we have been sheltered since the end of the war, it is no use fiddling about with Surtax and trying to kid people that the Surtax concessions are anything other than a way of paying off one's friends. It does not assist the country in the position in which it is placed.
The hon. Member for Wycombe said that the Surtax provisions were a matter of fiscal justice. Nobody would deny that the Surtax payer has a case. He has, but a lot of other people have a case. The aged have a case for increased pensions. The 10s. widows also have a case for more money. Persons paying Schedule A tax, especially those in small homes—because they are the only people who pay the tax these days—have a case for assistance.
What is wrong with the Surtax case is the type of person the Government have chosen as the first priority. Nobody denies that the Surtax payer can produce a case for increasing the level of Surtax, but no one can justify it at this time. This argument has been made many times. In a situation where, one month, a sum of £65 million is to be raised from the sick, it seems ludicrous to pay out £85 million the next month to people earning over £2,000 a year. If the Government have £85 million to spare, why should it be given to people who, with all their justifiable grievances, are certainly not suffering hardship, as the hon. Member for Wycombe rightly said.
We criticise the system of priorities, and we are told that Surtax levels were raised because it was necessary to the British economy that they should be raised. We are told that all these exporters have been on a kind of unofficial strike, refusing to export because the Surtax levels were too low, and that now that they have been raised the exporters will go galloping off exporting. What absolute bunk! Hon. Members opposite do not believe it—at least, very few of them do—and I am sure that very few of their supporters do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out, if we put forward the argument that exporters export more when they get more income the same can be said of importer, runners of striptease establishments, gamblers and everybody else.
The Surtax proposals are an inflationary move. The hon. Member for Louth, who uttered some very shrewd comments on the situation, paid great tribute to Sir Stafford Cripps and the policy of the wage freeze and the halt to inflation which he attempted to impose when he was in office, under very difficult circumstances. The hon. Member was asked whether this Government could rely on the sort of support that Sir Stafford Cripps had. Hon. Members know that no Conservative Government could implement a wage standstill at present. No Conservative Government could gain the trust of the majority of the working population at all levels in order to obtain a standstill in the economy to enable us to get our breath. Men earning £15, £16, £17 or even £20 a week, who are worried about mortgage repayments, and who have been told that they must pay more for their National Health prescriptions and higher National Insurance contributions cannot be persuaded to rely on a Government who, within a few weeks, give £83 million to people earning over £2,000 a year.
The Government do not have the confidence of most of our people, economically. They make the electioneering point that they did nicely in the county council elections, and also in the last General Election. We all know that. But one of the things that impress most people who go to the Iron Curtain countries—people like myself, who profoundly dislike their system—is the way


in which even those people who disagree violently and completely with the régime feel that they have a stake in the progress of their country; that they are a part of it, and are involved in its advance. That is something which our people do not feel. There is stagnation in British industry because there is stagnation in the country as a whole. It has no sense of leadership, and no belief in where it is going or how it should get there.
It has become clear that this country cannot be run without central economic planning. Hon. Members opposite have woken up to the facts of life and have discovered that there must be Government intervention in aviation, cotton and almost every other form of our national life. The only difference between the two sides of the Committee is as to how much intervention there should be, and the method by which it should be achieved. I am convinced that until this country is prepared to plan its economy—to realise what resources it has and then what priorities it will allocate to those resources—year after year we shall have to face balance of payments crises and other crises of one sort or another.
Inevitably, by the law of averages, we shall find ourselves at some time in serious economic difficulties. We shall have a situation in which a Government who came to power because of their alleged support for a great industrial nation and its industrial know-how tipped this country down the drain, economically—not deliberately but because they were not prepared to take the measures which were so obviously essential.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: For the same reasons of restrain which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) observed, I shall not follow up the interesting points they made. I know that they will forgive me for that. I shall concentrate the few remarks I wish to address to the Committee at this late stage in the Budget debate on one or two matters. In common with some other hon. Members I have now sat through every Budget debate since I first came to the House in 1951.
One feature of Socialist criticism of successive Conservative Budgets has run in a single unchanged pattern throughout the last nine years. Whatever steps we take, we are always told that the Budgets are designed to help the rich and our well-off supporters at the expense of the poorer members of the community. We are told that we help the brewers, the millionaires, the property speculators and all those sorts of people. The astonishing thing is, if this criticism is true, that there must be a thundering lot of property speculators and brewers in this country at election time—about 16,500,000 or so, or whatever the figure of Tory supporters was. Though these attacks have been made by the party opposite and we have an adult political electorate which has plenty of time to think of these things between the Budgets, the best evidence that these attacks are nonsense is that so many people, whose interests we are always alleged to ignore, vote Conservative in increasing numbers.
What can be the explanation of this phenomenon? Surely it is that the British people are not fooled by these criticisms. There are far too many of them—millions of trade unionists and their wives—who, election after election, have by their votes refuted all the criticisms of the Socialists after successive Tory Budgets. The electors of this country in all sections of the community realise that successive Conservative Chancellors and Governments have tried to balance the resources available so that each class of the community in turn will benefit. We have kept the priorities as I think they ought to be kept.
This is the ninth or tenth successive Conservative Budget and only now are we dealing with the Surtax payers. If it is said that it is not right to do that now it would be interesting to know when would be the right time to provide relief for this section of the community. In order to find the resources to give this relief we have increased too Profits Tax to an almost exactly similar amount. No one can say, therefore, that this has been done by sacrificing the interests of those poorer members of the community.
Two reasons have been given by Her Majesty's Ministers in the last few days for the change in the level at which Surtax becomes payable. One has been


treated so exhaustively that I do not think it profitable to pursue it much further. I refer to the incentive to work harder and to export more. We have different views about that on either side of the Committee, but I do not think there is much point in arguing them further, except in one context I will come to in a few moments. The other reason is that it is a simple act of justice.
In that context the argument is based fairly on the fact that the figure of £2,000 at which Surtax is paid was fixed in 1920, and since then not only has the value of money fallen, and the cost of living increased vastly, but other taxation has increased heavily. Obviously, therefore, there should be a change on the grounds of social justice alone. If £2,000 was the right figure in 1920, and even when a Socialist Government were in office in 1929–31 and from 1945 to 1951, it must be wrong today; or else the figure was fixed far too high then and the payment of Surtax ought to have been fixed at a much lower figure in 1920 and the successive years.
Although I appreciate that the priorities have made it necessary to concentrate on earned income this year, I hope that we shall not allow ourselves to get into the position of indefinitely penalising so-called unearned income in this context. I say that, not from any feeling of wanting to come to the aid of extremely rich men with inherited fortunes. If, however, the Government are to say, as successive Governments of every political complexion have said, that the people of the country ought not to spend all their available money but should invest more in industry and put more into savings, it is not right to treat the income which they thereafter derive by those means as something which should be penalised in a different way from other sources of income.
If we are to look to the industrial future of the country we must remember that there are not only two partners, management and labour, but a third partner, capital itself. If we are to go on encouraging people to play their part with this third section to ensure the industrial future of the country, I should have thought it not only fair but logical that when the first possible moment comes we should not shirk from the need to make similar changes in Surtax rates

on unearned income, which are still on exactly the same basis as when fixed in 1920. We ought to take some steps in regard to unearned income as well as earned income.
In criticising the country's general economic purpose, various hon. and right hon. Members opposite have made the usual comparison with the league tables of countries overseas. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are getting used to those comparisons, but oddly enough, we never have pointed out to us any particular reason why those other countries are supposed to be doing—and in some cases are doing—so much better than we are. It certainly is not because West Germany and the United States of America are following economic and social policies advocated by the party opposite and are therefore doing well.
No one would suggest that the President of the United States or the President of Federal Germany is following the advice of hon. Members opposite, but, oddly enough, there is one feature which is never referred to. Although we are told that the present rate of taxation, particularly on the management and technician level of income has no effect at all on output in this country and that no fresh incentive is required, we find that in those same league tables the rates of direct taxation on precisely the same levels that we are changing on this occasion are considerably lower than they are in this country.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Brown indicated dissent.

Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) shakes his head, but I cannot argue about this because I am particularly anxious to allow other hon. Members to speak in this debate. I am quite willing to quote the figures if necessary. In fact, the net income kept by people in the levels we are now debating in Germany and America are considerbly higher than they are here. They will remain higher even after we have made changes under the present proposals.
When we say that we are to cancel Surtax on earned income between £2,000 and £5,000 one is sometimes left with the impression, listening to the criticisms made, that that means those people


will pay no tax at all. They will still be paying an extremely high level of Income Tax, amounting to nearly 40 per cent. of the total anyway. If we compare the figures in the document which the right hon. Member for Belper has, we shall see on reflection that, even when these changes have been made, a comparable person in Germany or America or France will keep more net income than the person in Britain.

Mr. G. Brown: Mr. G. Brown indicated dissent.

Mr. Bennett: This must remain a matter for everyone concerned to check for himself later. I am perfectly prepared to withdraw at some future date if it can be shown by the right hon. Member that I am wrong. I hope that he will do likewise if he is wrong. I am in fact quite willing to bet him a Premium Bond that I am not wrong.
There is another altogether different point I want to make. I have my doubts about one aspect of the payroll tax, which otherwise I find an original and interesting idea. I fear that, as long as this remains a potential threat in the background, it will be very difficult for those who tender for long-term contracts not to take that possibility into account by increasing their estimates of costs for the coming months—and even years ahead in the case of long contracts—because no business that failed to do so would be very sensible. They might find themselves caught up in the middle of a contract with something involving a large new element of new cost. Therefore, I hope that, by one method or another, this danger can be overcome. I have one or two possible suggestions on how it can be done, but I do not wish to weary the Committee with them now.
There is one other small point. I should like to know as soon as possible—perhaps it is too early yet to get the information—how the new regulations and new methods proposed by the Chancellor last year for dealing with those who make large tax-free incomes under the guise of capital gains are going along. Have these regulations proved sufficient, and are they doing the job? Here I think I should find common ground with hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. What people in this country object to is not successful investment

but the activities of those who under the pretext of capital investments step up incomes and avoid the payment of tax upon them. For that reason, the Chancellor last year took very great pains to find means of overcoming this difficulty, and I am looking forward to hearing from him whether the method has proved effective or not.
I wish to make one other suggestion in the same field. I should not have minded if the Chancellor had announced that, just as one has to pay, in the ordinary way, Stamp Duty of 2 per cent. on all share transactions, one should now pay the same Stamp Duty being paid on all share transactions carried out within the account. At this moment, if we are trying to discriminate between blatant speculation as opposed to genuine investment for future capital appreciation, no one can say that one is doing other than speculating if one tries to buy and sell shares within a single account.
We were promised a few days after the Chancellor's proposals were announced, in nearly all the newspapers and by speakers on the radio, a sustained and vigorous Socialist attack on my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. If the last three days have been a sustained and vigorous Socialist attack, I do not think that the Chancellor need do other than sleep very easily during the coming months.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: Towards the end of this four-day marathon, when time is running out, I hope that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) will not expect me to follow him in detail, because I want to say a few words about the effect or the non-effect of this Budget on my constituency and others like it.
I represent a constituency the main industry of which is agriculture, and in which most of the workers are on the lower rungs of the wages ladder. I can assure the Chancellor that his Budget, which was presented so pleasantly, has given no satisfaction at all to constituents of mine, and it is not likely to receive any sort of welcome.
The Chancellor has made a tremendous concession to Surtax payers. I agree that some consideration was due


to Surtax payers, but this large concession is out of proportion at this time. Many hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, have emphasised the importance of giving incentives to management in industry in order to try to increase production, and we are all anxious that our production should be increased. Indeed, one of the main complaints of the Labour Party has been that we have had stagnation for so long. We therefore agree that we badly need greatly increased production and that incentive is necessary. But there are two sides to industry—the manual workers and the Surtax payers. It seems strange to me that, according to the Chancellor, only one side needs an incentive.
It cannot be denied that the production record of farm workers equals that of any other workers in this country. Their present basic wage is £8 9s. a week. Farm workers are being asked to do overtime, but they are taxed on their overtime earnings. There is very little incentive for young farm workers to drive tractors with head lights on, sometimes nearly all night, when they are taxed on their overtime earnings, and at the same time the Chancellor gives this tremendous incentive to Surtax payers. It seems strange to me that it had to be a one-sided hand-out rather than that both sides of industry should share it.
My hon. Friends and I were interested in the antics of hon. Members opposite when the Chancellor reached this part of his speech. We had been watching the antics of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) under his "topper", and we noted the jubilation with which he received the Chancellor's announcement about Surtax concessions. He was so overjoyed that since then we have seen him in the House for only five or ten minutes, and that was at midnight last night when he went through the Division Lobby.
No doubt the new Chancellor will be the hero of the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his henchmen. It seems that the hon. Member for Kidderminster will not be after the new Chancellor's blood as he was after the blood of his predecessor whom he threatened so frequently, especially at this time of the year.
Last week, with many others, I was concerned in the county council election campaign. I noticed that some Tory politicians at that time said that there was little difference between the two main parties. We have only to look at what has happened this week to see the difference between the outlook of the two parties. A few weeks ago the Minister of Health proposed to double the prescription charges. I believe that that is still the biggest thorn in the side of our people, especially the sick and aged.
It was noticeable on Monday that, although the Government Front Bench was packed, there was one notable absentee—the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the pluck to come along to hear the Chancellor hand out this large "lob" to the wealthy, knowing that a couple of months earlier he had soaked the poor and needy by doubling prescription charges and increasing National Health contributions. When those charges were increased, the Minister of Health said that everyone would pay the increases, be they the humblest worker or the Surtax payer.
Another proposal of the Chancellor will affect all car owners, whether they own Rolls-Royces—and are Surtax payers—or seven or eight h.p. vehicles—the family oar of the workers. All will pay the increase, as happens when anything has to be paid to this Government. When it comes to giving a hand-out, it is a different story. Only a small percentage of the wealthy will benefit under the Chancellor's Surtax proposals.
Tory propagandists have been trying to tell the electors that in matters of policy there is little to choose between the two parties in the House. If that Budget statement is not an eye-opener, I do not know what is. The people to whom these Tory propagandists have been speaking are the people who will have to pay the increased prescription charges and National Insurance contributions, and they are wondering why they, too, will not share in this week's Budget hand-out. The reason is simple. The hand-out is going to the Chancellor's wealthy friends, the people who support the Tory Party at election time and no doubt this is that party's way of returning the thanks.
The payroll tax is not welcomed in areas such as my constituency. Although we tend to speak in terms of 4s. a week, let us remember that that amounts to £10 a year. The farmers, for instance, find it difficult to pay the minimum agricultural wage. Many farmers have to be persuaded to employ more labour and we do not want to make the task of persuasion even more difficult. I fear that if we overburden them, they will tend to reduce their labour force—and in the years between the wars I had experience of unemployment.
The tax on fuel oil is also not welcomed, especially by horticulturists. The Government recently gave them grants for modernisation and for heating equipment on their holdings and many horticulturists have recently changed over from solid fuel to oil. Naturally, this increase in the price of oil will increase their overheads.
I regret that the Chancellor has been unable to do anything for the holders of post-war credits or to give more help to widows and pensioners, on whose behalf a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made representations to the Government. This typical Tory budget is anything but welcome, not only in my constituency, but throughout the country.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I am sure that everyone who has been able to listen to much of the debate will agree that there have been some outstanding speeches. Picking any out for comment, of course, is always invidious. Much depends on one's opportunity to hear certain speeches and not others, and, of course, the basis of one person's judgment may differ from that of another.
Nevertheless, I think that no one will mind if I mention, first, the maiden speech of the new hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), who is not at present in the Chamber. He made what I thought was an uncommonly competent and well-delivered speech. On my own side this evening, I was particularly struck by the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), both of which seemed to me to be very significant.
I must say also, to show how fair I am, that I was struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). The hon. Gentleman had precious little comfort for the Chancellor, not that the Chancellor heard much of what he said, and his speech seemed, from our point of view, to be both cogent and well argued.
I ought not to omit a reference to the Chancellor's own speech. Both his and the contribution made today by the Financial Secretary were, I think, impressive in their delivery, although we, of course, have other views about their content. About the President of the Board of Trade, I cannot say the same. I pass rather quickly from his and the other Government contribution to the debate made from that side of the Committee.
One thing about the Budget is to the credit of the Chancellor. It combines a novel awareness that things have gone wrong with the economy and a long overdue admission that Government policies have been inadequate and ineffective. This is an advance. It is an advance which has not yet quite sunk into the mind of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). He has not yet understood the point, nor, apparently, has the Prime Minister, whom we are all happy to welcome to our debate.
I am particularly pleased to see the Prime Minister here, because I wish to start with a reference to something which he very recently said. I have with me a copy of this evening's Evening News. It is clear that, although the Budget was put back for a week to allow the Prime Minister to be here, what the Chancellor had to say did not really go home to the Prime Minister either at the Cabinet meeting, where, presumably, it was disclosed to him, or at any later stage. The headline in the Evening News tonight is, "Booming Britain". Of course, the Prime Minister was among his Tory women, and perhaps that is not the best atmosphere for sticking strictly to accuracy and the facts.
According to the report in this newspaper, the right hon. Gentleman said that
Industrial production is 12 per cent. higher than two years ago. Our exports are running at a record level. Capital investment in new factories and new machinery rose by no


less than 16 per cent. last year. A further 30 per cent. increase is expected this year".
What does the Prime Minister think that the Chancellor was talking about? The Chancellor said that
On any basis of calculation, the balance of payments during 1960 was very unsatisfactory".
A little later, he said:
But the other side of the medal was…the signs of a return of increasing costs and prices, the failure of our exports to increase sufficiently, and the consequence serious weakness in our balance of payments. It cannot be denied that it was a year of prosperity. Equally, it cannot be disputed that that prosperity did not rest on a sufficiently secure foundation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 797.]
A very different speech from the one the Prime Minister delivered this afternoon.

Mr. William Hamilton: A different audience.

Mr. Brown: We are all well aware that the Prime Minister is given to this kind of political presentation, which does not necessarily have to accord with the facts. Often, when I read what he says, I am reminded of a remark once made to me by the late lamented Aneurin Bevan, in one of the rooms in this Palace, just after he and I had had a difference of opinion. I said, "You want to get hold of the facts". Mr. Bevan said, "One of the things you will learn is that a knowledge of the facts often impedes the best speeches". I am bound to say that one would have been impeded this afternoon.
Every hon. Member knows that, leaving aside whatever political advantage one tries to get out of it, there is a serious side, if I may choose uncontroversial words, to the economic situation of Britain at present and which faces us in the future. One thing that we have to do in such a situation is to put the facts before the people and give them the sort of lead which will inspire them to the action that ought to be taken. How can that be done if the Prime Minister, when he speaks in the country, uses the sort of words and evokes the sort of headlines which leave everyone thinking as the hon. Member for Torquay thought, namely, "As long as you do not listen too much to the silly Socialists everything in the garden will be delightful". This is exactly what is

not true and exactly what the Prime Minister ought not to put before the country.
What is the basic problem which faces us? Let us try to see it as clearly as we can and as it has emerged from the debate. The first thing is that the industrial production of the country is not rising fast enough and, except for a short period, has not done so for quite a time. In so far as it is rising at all, it is doing so far more slowly than that of our competitors. Various right hon. and hon. Members opposite have pretended that it is wrong, or not very important, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and others produce what are called league tables.
Unless we listen to the note of warning that is surely being conveyed when every one of our competitors in the world is going ahead productively faster than we are, how will we wake up to what is happening? We produce these tables—T will not repeat them now—not merely because we want to show that other people are doing better than we are, but because in this table of productivity, and even of our exports, lies the clearest warning to us of where we shall finish if we do not pull our socks up and do something serious about it.
Our industrial production record is and has been very worrying over a period. We can start by considering whether the Budget is addressed to the real problem which faces the country and then we can see what we think ought to be done about it. The slow rise in production has been paralleled by a totally inadequate rise in exports. In the second and third quarters of 1960 exports declined while import rose at an alarming rate. There was a slight recovery in the last three months of 1960, but the value of exports in the final quarter, after seasonal adjustments, were 3 per cent. less than the value of exports in the first quarter of the year.
This is not a booming situation. It is a frightening situation, one which can land these islands, peculiarly dependent, as we are, on imports and, therefore, needing the means to pay for them, in very considerable trouble. The President of the Board of Trade was one of those yesterday who, on the question of the league tables and comparisons,


seemed peculiarly to want to make light of it. I do not know whether that was his intention, but that was the impression which he gave me. He did not appear to regard it as a serious business. The Chancellor, however, made a quite different impression. He not only referred to the insecure foundations, but he warned us about the balance of payments and about how far we had to go in building up exports. He went on to say that the solution to the balance of payments problem was not to be found in checking the growth of the economy, as the Government have so far been doing, and so on.
If the Chancellor's own side of the Committee had been listening to all that analysis of his instead of waiting so expectantly simply for the reference to tax reductions that hon. Members opposite hoped would come later, some of the speeches that have been made today on the Government side would not have been made. All that the Chancellor said in the analysis was excellent, but when it came to what to do about it, it was a very different story.
There is one thing that I should like to get clear and I ask hon. Members opposite to think about it. It is repeatedly being said—it was said again just now—that part of the reason for our problems is that we have either too many strikes, higher wages, or higher taxation than our competitors, or higher costs of social services. A variety of things like this are said.
If one looks at the comparison between us and our European competitors in particular, that is simply not true. There was a time when we were ahead of them in wages and social services. Now, however, if we take the true labour cost, both what is paid in money and what the employers have to pay in other ways—and social benefits in the other countries are often carried by the employer—it will be found that far from being penalised, we are in many cases behind other countries. It cannot be said that it is this which is holding us back. Other countries are going ahead and carrying heavier burdens in this respect than we are.
There are two key factors with neither of which the Budget comes into contact.

The first is the shortage of scientists and technologists in British industry. I will return to Surtax presently. Folk who think that scientists and technologists are in short supply in British industry because of a marginal difference in the amount of Surtax which they might have to pay when earning £10,000 a year are barking right up the wrong tree. The reason is quite different. It has something to do with industry's very late recognition of the part that this kind of person has to play. It has a great deal to do with the kind of salaries that are offered to these people, not only at the starting point, but for a very large part of the time while they are working.
The second key factor is the inadequate pace of expansion of the British economy and of innovations in it. I believe, quite contrary to what some people have said, that there is nothing in the Budget that will stimulate investment or get investment to the places where it is needed. This is as much a part of our problem as the overall problem of expansion. It is the business of planning a longish period ahead and being selective in what one wants to achieve. On the contrary, not only does the Budget not attach itself to this task, but over the past nine years the Government's policies have actually held back long-term investment and have discouraged investment in the areas in which we ought to have it.
The biggest single cause of the balance of payments crisis that the Chancellor spoke about seems to us to exist in the tremendous rise in imports in the last year or so. The Government's Economic Survey does not say this. It states that the expansion of the economy over the past two years has resulted in a substantial increase in imports. That is not true. With great respect to the President of the Board of Trade, that is not the real truth. If the right hon. Gentleman will not look more deeply than that into this, we are in a tragic way.
Of course, there has been some increase in raw materials. There has been an increase in the materials required for industry, but that is not where the big increase has gone. The big increase in the last year, for example, has been in the imports of manufactured and semi-manufactured goods, which have risen in a single year, I am informed, by over one-third and which have added to our


import bill an extra £150 million and £247 million respectively. These two increases taken together, were responsible for more than enough to account for the whole of last year's enormous balance of payments deficit on current account.
This, in our view, is where the weight of it happened. This happened because of the right hon. Gentleman's own premature dismantling of import controls, which would have allowed him to keep the economy steering the right way. He, more than anyone else, is personally responsible and it is not due, as the Economic Survey puts it, to an expansion of the economy.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Imports during the last two years have risen by £800 million a year. Sixty per cent. of that was for materials for industry. Only one-quarter was for finished manufactures and, of that one-quarter, two-thirds was for capital equipment for industry. At the same time, our exports of finished manufactures, particularly of machinery for the people who were sending the goods to us, increased much more than our imports.

Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman is right—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is."]—then the Chancellor's reference would be wrong. The Minister is now using such highly selective figures for his gullible back benchers that the Chancellor cannot get his message over.
I am now very sure, talking of briefs, who gave the Prime Minister his misleading brief earlier today. He obviously did not get it from the Treasury, as he should have done, but from the Board of Trade, and that is a terrible mistake.
I turn quickly to two of the new proposals, the so-called new regulators. Here, I ask the Chancellor, before I talk about them in general, a detailed question that we ought to have cleared up tonight. When the Financial Secretary spoke earlier today about the two new regulators, he introduced a second "Boyle's law", which, in some ways, seemed a little more dangerous than the first. He said, in answer to interventions, that these regulators entitled the Government to interfere with the economy, to raise duties and taxes and that they could be used in the autumn, which, he

said, was one of our difficult times, even though Parliament was not sitting.
The hon. Gentleman was asked how this could be done if, in fact, these regulators required affirmative Resolutions. He gave some explanation about our being able to do this first and Parliament would pass an affirmative Resolution later. This would not be affirmative Resolution procedure at all. We need to have it clearly from the Chancellor whether this is a matter which Parliament will always have the chance of discussing before it takes effect.
In so far as the Chancellor has accepted that the kind of fiscal controls which the Government have left to them to up to now are not enough for doing the job, this is a welcome step forward but I cannot say that we regard with anything like confidence the particular ones that he has put forward in the Budget, the additional fiscal weapons with which he has armed himself. It seems to us that the two weapons he has chosen are totally inadequate, and that became very apparent from the conflicts there were between the various Ministers both about their purpose and the way that they would operate. I ask the Chancellor to spend a moment or two on this subject a little later.
It seems to me that the power to alter indirect taxation by affirmative Resolution outside the Budget has many dangers and doubts in it. Has the Chancellor thought about the effect on trade of the operation of this kind of change or surcharge—and I leave out the rebate although that too will be difficult? Has he thought about the effect on stocks and the degree to which it would worry trade over large periods of the year?
Is it a good way of stimulating the economy to think in terms of a tax rebate which, for the most part, will stimulate consumer spending, to a predominant extent on luxury goods which, on the whole, we want to discourage, instead of stimulating productive investment at the key points of the economy? Apart from the political point which has already been made about the use that this could be put to for electioneering purposes, it seems to me that this could have economically a very discouraging effect, and the opposite of what is intended, on the country's trade.
As to the payroll tax, as an hon. Member opposite said earlier today, this has had a very hot reception everywhere. Hardly anybody is persuaded about it and I would draw attention to the completely different approach by Ministers as the best evidence that they have not themselves thought it out yet. The Chancellor chose to concentrate on the fact that this would have the effect of redeploying labour. On the other hand, when we ask the Economic Secretary how this would apply to Remploy—and the purpose of Remploy is to employ labour, not horsepower—he tossed it aside and did not seem to think that it was a very relevant or important issue. But if this did what the Chancellor said it would do, it would be an absolute disaster for Remploy.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said this afternoon, in so many words, "At the sort of rates the Government are proposing, this would have little effect on labour, if any at all, and the real point is that it is a new fiscal measure which will enable us to take a large amount of money out of people's pockets and out of the market". For three men who hold responsible Governments posts to have such completely different views on its purpose, suggests that it was not thought out at all. No one will have missed what the President of the Motor Car Manufacturers' Society has said about it.
This is quite a frightening business for large areas of industry, for the development districts, for Scotland, and for Northern Ireland. Areas of heavy unemployment must be very frightened of a tax of this kind being imposed to discourage the employment of labour. For industries that cannot change their labour intensity very easily, for the public services and for the non-industrial trading services a tax of this kind is of no particular value and can only make their position much more difficult.
Since it is in any case an increase in labour costs and can only have the effect of putting up the cost of labour for production and services, no matter whether somebody can pass it on or not, and since the Chancellor spent so much time talking about cost-inflation and the part that it is playing in holding back our

exports in competition with other countries, it seems to us impossible to understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it useful to add this degree of cost-inflation on top of the cost-inflation of which he already says we have too much. This is not a well thought out plan. Frankly, I doubt whether it will ever come to fruition.
I promised to sit down at a certain time, but I have just time to raise another issue on which public attention has been concentrated and which is the most important part of the Budget. The Budget is not addressed to the economic problems facing us, and that is the most worrying thing about it. The only thing on which there is unity on the Government benches is the Surtax proposal.
The Government have said that they are taking the money out of companies through the Profits Tax and returning it to individuals, but there is no evidence to support that highly distorted presentation. What they have done is to take £70 million in increased taxation last month from one group in the community and to give it to another group through reduced taxation this month.
These are the only two groups of persons involved. Some taxpayers will now pay more as a result of what happened last month, while some others will pay a lot less as a result of what has happened this month. That is the true comparison. Over the last five years, Surtax payers, one way and another, have had over £117 million a year taken off their tax burden, while the people at the other end of the scale, the ordinary people, have had their position worsened, for they are paying more. Let us remember that if the man at £5,000, £10,000, or £20,000 needs an incentive, so does the man at £10 or £15 a week.
A family with £10,000 coming in has £2,000 less per year to pay now; the family with £5,000 income now has £861 a year less to pay. Those in that group are doing well. Most of them have one-third less to pay. Yet, together, they only account for one-quarter of 1 per cent. of all incomes. What about the other 99¾ per cent.?
A further 5 per cent. will pay only slightly less tax. Those earning £2,000 and upwards will have their tax reduced by about £23. A family earning £1,250 will have a tax cut of only about 37s.


The remaining 95 per cent. of the people are left with the situation that any tax reliefs they have received over the past five years are more than offset by increases in insurance contributions.
A family with £600 a year is actually paying at least £12 18s. 4d. more than it was paying five years ago. A family with a £1,000 income is paying £5 more than five years ago. In fact, any family with less than £23 a week is paying more in taxes and contributions than it was five years ago.
It is evident that this involves a vast degree of social injustice. It is a deliberate choice by the party opposite, whatever its reason may be, to make those at the bottom of the scale pay more in order to allow those at the very top to pay a lot less. It is not the young scientists, or the young technicians, or the young managers to whom these incentives of the Budget apply. They hardly apply at all to those earning between £2,000 and £5,000 a year.
It is the man on £5,000, even more than the man on £10,000, and even more the man on £20,000 a year, to whom there will be any major benefit. This is not a matter of incentives, but a straightforward plum awarded to people who are far better off than the bulk of their fellow citizens. There are not more than 17,000 out of more than 50 million of the population who get any real benefit out of the Budget. These concessions are not incentives, but a straightforward redistribution of the tax burden from the very rich to the poor.
We will divide the Committee against the Budget tonight, somewhat unusually, on the grounds which I have put to the Committee. The Budget does not address itself to our real problems. It holds out no hope that the Government will now apply the policies which they ought to have applied. So far as it does anything specific, it does something which is regressive, bad and offensive by every moral, ethical or social standard in redistributing tax like this, and we invite the Committee suitably to show its opposition.

9.36 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for

Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), and other hon. Members who have spoken so generously to me about my Budget speech. I realise that that does not in any way involve them in any commendation of the contents of the Budget, and I shall remember that in future, but I very much appreciated what they were good enough to say.
I have listened to a great deal of the debate, and I heard at 3.30 this afternoon with a slight nostalgia a demand for a foreign affairs debate, after a considerable absence of such a debate. There is no need for there to be a demand for a debate on the Budget or other financial business. I realise, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) said, that this is the beginning of a marathon and frankly I am looking forward to it.
There have been many speeches, and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on his maiden speech. I will try to deal with the matters which have been raised. I will carefully study what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) said. We have already had certain discussions about this matter, and I promise him that I will give careful attention to his speech.
During the debate, we have had all the usual arguments about the state of the economy. The right hon. Member for Belper quoted Mr. Bevan saying that knowledge of the facts impeded the best speeches. He did not quote the converse of that proposition.
As I said in my Budget speech, there is considerable difficulty about an objective discussion of the state of the economy. If the Government say that anything is good, they are accused of complacency. If they say that anything is bad, they are accused of having admitted the fault of their economic policies. If the Opposition acknowledge that anything the Government have done is right, they are in difficulty, and they have to say that everything is awful.
But we should be a little careful when we are dealing with the state of our economy about decrying it too much. There has been a great deal of talk about the slow rate of growth of the economy. My right hon. Friend the President of the


Board of Trade dealt fully with that question on Tuesday, but I agree—and this was a matter raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh)—that, while not for a moment trying to imply that one is satisfied with it, the level of investment has been rising steadily for some years.
It has now gone up to 18½ per cent. and that is to be compared with the figure of about 14 per cent. five or six years ago. There has been a steady growth in that investment and that is a matter for some commendation of those involved. It is a good augury for the future if we can make use of it; that is to say, if we have the energy and enterprise to match our expanding factories and machines.
I also think that it gives a rather misleading figure always to look only at the average figures. It is quite true that production overall was fairly stable last year after the very fast growth of 1959, but I think that it is quite wrong to say that it was a year of stagnation because many industries, and in particular many of those most closely concerned with capital investment, increased their output.
Perhaps I might give some examples. Consider the metal-working and machine tool industries. In the last quarter of 1960, compared with the previous twelve months, they put up their output by 16 per cent. Contractors' plant is another example—about 17 per cent. Commercial vehicles—13 per cent. This growth is taking place in chemicals, in steel, and in many other aspects of our economy.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying that the key to progress is more investment. I think that there is more to it than that. Though the figures that I have given show that we are very far from the position of stagnation, I am not the least complacent about the situation, and in introducing my Budget I tried to speak frankly about whether the economy was sufficiently resilient and flexible to meet the demands on it.
My Budget has been criticised because it does nothing for exports, so it is said. I do not think that that is a fair criticism, because one point of the surplus of over £500 million for which I am budgeting is to make room in the economy for exports, and the purpose of withdrawing

another £80 million of purchasing power from the economy is to stop the overloading of industry which might otherwise have led to our losing export orders.
I am asking for power to use, if need be, the two economic regulators so as to make quite certain that if £500 million is not enough I can correct the position later in the year.
It is true that I have been urged by some of my hon. Friends—in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aber-deer, South (Lady Tweedsmuir)—to use the Budget to give direct incentives to exporters by the remission of tax on profits earned by exporters. This is a very important matter and I want, if I may, to put some points to my hon. Friends about it.
Both sides of industry have been opposed to differential taxation of this kind. In recent years the Federation of British Industries has consistently advanced the view that the Government's aim should be to remove deterrents to exports, for example, high taxation and unduly burdensome formalities, and not to introduce a new level of concealed or overt subsidies in the form of special incentives to exporters.
The Federation has urged the Government to press other Governments to abandon the various forms of export incentives and subsidies which they adopted after the war, and has suggested to industry that it should follow a similar policy through its international organisations.
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the National Union of Manufacturers have supported the F.B.I. in its opposition to the introduction of special incentives, and I understand that that is also the attitude of the Trades Union Congress.
I put this point to my hon. Friends. Since 1952 many forms of subsidy and export incentives in other countries have been ended under pressure from international organisations and also as a result of bilateral discussions. Of our main European competitors, the Germans allowed their Export Protection Law to lapse at the end of 1955, and there have been no export tax incentive schemes since then. In France, direct


subsidies on exports of manufactured goods other than ships and aircraft were finally brought to an end in February, 1958, and, so far as we can ascertain, no open subsidies or incentives are given in any other European countries to help exporters of manufactured goods.
Those, and other Governments of course, give rebates on indirect taxation for export, but that is precisely what we do. Therefore, although I will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough says when he tables the Amendment about which he warned me, and I will look at any suggestions which are within the framework of existing international agreements and conduct, my view remains that on balance it would be against our interests to give special tax incentives to exporters since other countries would be bound to do likewise and we might well be the losers in the resulting race. It would undo the work of the last few years—and great credit should be given to industry, working through its international associations, for the work it has tried to do to bring this kind of practice to an end.
But, while I do not think it wise to treat exporters in this way, we have done a great deal to help them recently by improving credit facilities and removing unnecessary obstacles in the way of export trade. In my Budget speech I referred to the complete overhaul of the facilities offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department which the President of the Board of Trade and I have recently undertaken. We can claim that with the help of the Bank of England and the financial institutions concerned we have now available the range of credit facilities which our exporters need to help them to compete in important markets. We have done much to remove unnecessary obstacles, for example, by the simplification of export and exchange control procedures. The proposal in my Budget to abolish the ad valorem Stamp Duty on bills of exchange was a considerable help to exporters.
In general, I am determined to see that our system is sufficiently flexible to cope with any reasonable demands by exporters. The Customs are very ready to help, and I earnestly suggest to exporters that if they feel that there are any difficulties over Customs procedures they

should ask at once for advice from the local Customs and Excise office, and I have given instructions that where a local office is uncertain of the advice to give there should be an immediate reference to London, so that the advice can be given quickly. This is a very important aspect of the export business and I am determined to see that the machine runs smoothly.
So much for exports; now I turn to the regulators. The case that I put for the two new economic regulators can be summarised very shortly. Their purpose is to enable us to take action to stimulate or restrain the forces working within the economy, as and when it is necessary so to do, without having to concentrate action at the time of the Budget, in April, when much of the significance of what may happen later in the year cannot necessarily be foreseen. Moreover, it will enable us to reduce our reliance upon monetary measures—on hire-purchase controls and the like—which we know from experience can be rather harsh and unfair in their operation, because they hit at a restricted band of industry.
The Radcliffe Committee urged the importance of finding new means which could be at once flexible and more pervasive in influencing the economy, and my proposals will meet that end. We want to have available means of stimulating or restraining purchasing power which can be used at any time in the financial year, as I have said, which will be operated over a wide field, will not be concentrated on particular industries or trades and will not involve the creation of new or elaborate administrative machines, but which will enable the necessary stimulus or restraints to be brought to bear by relatively small changes in the rate of payment to be prescribed.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have referred particularly to the second regulator and have stressed its disadvantages. They have spoken about its effect in areas of local unemployment. One hon. Member spoke of the damage it will do in a time of recession. There can be no question of using this regulator at a time of recession. If it were used at all it would be used at a time of high boom in Britain, when there was such a pressure of demand at home that imports were being sucked in and resources taken


away from exports. I want these weapons to deal with that sort of situation.
At present we have certain weapons. We have the Bank Rate, we have the hire-purchase restrictions and the special deposit scheme. All have their disadvantages. There is no secret about the fact that they have their disadvantages. Physical controls have their disadvantages—in all the rationing schemes that follow. Any weapon of this sort has its disadvantages. Mine both have, and I do not shirk that fact. I admit at once that there are certain aspects of them which I do not like.
The point was made that I intend to use the second regulator whatever happens. That is not true. Had that been my intention I should have imposed it now. I sincerely hope that I have—and my present judgment is that I have—provided by a surplus of £500 million for all circumstances. But one cannot be certain. There is an old Chinese proverb that to be uncertain is uncomfortable; to be certain is ridiculous. Therefore, I want these powers, not exactly emergency powers, but powers to avert any trouble, and that is how they should be looked at.
I ask for this second regulator to be used this year only attached to the National Insurance stamp. Of course, we shall have power to vary the levy and we shall be prepared to do so if it seems right as between various classes of employees, women and children, boys and girls, who pay separate rates of contribution under the National Insurance Scheme. We shall have the power to do that in the event of there being cause for the use of this regulator.
Obviously, if we examine the possibility of a permanent payroll tax designed to make the best use of our scarce labour resources, we shall want to give a great deal of thought to its purpose and its content and to such questions as whether it could be selective between industries, where it could be selective between geographical areas and whether it could be associated with some other changes in other forms of taxation upon companies. I have not tried to judge those issues this year. I repeat that I am well aware of the possible defects of this and any other regulator, and that is why in my Budget speech I said:

I will, however, continue to examine other methods of levying such a surcharge. Should Parliament be asked to grant this power again next year, I would put forward fresh proposals."—'[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 809.]
But, in the circumstances in which I find myself, I consider that we must have and must be seen to have a variety of instruments on which to draw for the purpose of regulating the economy in such a way as to leave capacity available for increased exports and to maintain our financial stability.
Questions have been raised today about the use of these regulators when the House is not sitting. Of course, they would have to be confirmed by the House. But so far as the second regulator is concerned, where there is a certain administrative delay, I do not think there would be difficulty, because it would take some weeks to bring it into effect. The first regulator would be announced ahead of confirmation just as other Government revenue duties always are. They are announced and fixed ahead of confirmation. What would happen if the House was not sitting would depend on the situation. Were the House to meet again within three or four days of the announcement of such action I do not think it would be too early. But if, for example, one had to announce the intention of the use of this power when the House would not meet for three months or so, I can hardly conceive of the House not being recalled in order to deal with the matter
I have no desire to take from the House of Commons the right to control the use of this kind of instrument. I am certain that we shall take care of the matter in that way.
May I say a word about Surtax? There has been a great deal of attack on my Surtax proposals—

Mr. James Callaghan: Where from?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not quite certain how genuine it was from any side.
Some hon. Members have said that my Budget will make those already rich richer still. I think that they are out of touch and out of date. A man who is earning £5,000 gross today is not rich unless he has large private means as well. No doubt forty or fifty years ago, on that sort of income, one could have had


a house in London, a house in the country, a large domestic staff and still have been able to save. But today a man earning £5,000 gross, unless he has private means, has the greatest difficulty in providing out of his income—[Hon. Members: "No."]—has the greatest difficulty indeed in providing out of his income for the education of his family and for saving. That is a fact of life, and Surtax for him, as I say, unless he has private means is at present penal. Therefore, I support what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said about these proposals being an act of social justice.
Quite apart from that, I believe that Surtax remissions on earned income are the most effective way of giving a real impulse to our industrial and commercial enterprise. It may be true of a few people with no family responsibilities, with very simple tastes and with large private means, but the average person, on whatever level, is interested in how much he keeps of what he earns.
The right hon. Member for Huyton spoke as if our main purpose in this was to encourage exporters and as if it was almost a disadvantage that others would be encouraged. That is a complete misunderstanding of what we need. On the one hand, there are the total claims on our resources, and, on the other, the resources available to meet them. Whatever has the effect of increasing our enterprise and efficiency will, therefore, make its contribution and add to our output, about which the right hon.

Member showed himself so anxious in another part of his speech. We also need more exports and more home production to leave more available for exports. The right hon. Member made a point about importers. If importers are more efficient, good luck to them. Our economic life depends on imports of food and raw materials. We want them to be bought more skilfully and more cheaply.

There have been many attempts to make out that these remissions will be paid for out of the health stamp and health charges. I think that those speeches were all made up before my Budget speech was delivered, because hon. and right hon. Members opposite know quite well that in fact these remissions will be paid for almost entirely out of Profits Tax. I think that is equitable. On the whole it means that those who own, the equity shareholders, will get less but those who are earning will get more. I think that particular arrangement of transferring the burden a little from those who own to those who earn is a good thing to do, although I am fully aware of the necessity to have an incentive to saving.

I think that the proposals I have put forward will strengthen our economy, encourage our exporters and gain confidence in sterling at home and abroad, and I ask the Committee to accept them.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 325, Noes 206.

Division No. 140.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Aitken, W. T.
Box, Donald
Cleaver, Leonard


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cole, Norman


Allason, James
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooke, Robert


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian (Preston, N.)
Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Balniel, Lord
Brooman-White, R.
Cordle, John


Barber, Anthony
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Corfield, F. V.


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Costain, A. P.


Barter, John
Bryan, Paul
Coulson, J. M.


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bullard, Denys
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Critchley, Julian


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Glos &amp; Fhm)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Cunningham, Knox


Berkeley, Humphry
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Curran, Charles


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bidgood, John C.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Dance, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bingham, R. M.
Channon, H. P. G.
Deedes, W. F.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Chataway, Christopher
de Ferranti, Basil


Bishop, F. P.
Chichester-Clarke, R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bossom, Clive
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Doughty, Charles




Drayson, G. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


du Cann, Edward
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Duncan, Sir James
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis


Duthie, Sir William
Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, James


Eden, John
Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lagden, Godfrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, J.
Rees, Hugh


Emery, Peter
Leather, E. H. C.
Renton, David


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, Gilmour
Ridsdale, Julian


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Farr, John
Lindsay, Martin
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fell, Anthony
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. John
Roots, William


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Forrest, George
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Foster, John
Loveys, Walter H.
Sharples, Richard


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Shaw, M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Freeth, Denzil
McAdden, Stephen
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Gammans, Lady
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Speir, Rupert


Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gough, Frederick
McMaster, Stanley R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Stodart, J. A.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R,
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maginnis, John E.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Grimston, Sir Robert
Maitland, Sir John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Gurden, Harold
Manningham-Butler, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Tapsell, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marlowe, Anthony
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Marshall, Douglas
Teeling, William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hay, John
Mills, Stratton
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
More, Jasper (Ludow)
Turner, Colin


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Morgan, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hendry, Forbes
Morrison, John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Gerald
Vane, W. M. F.


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Michael
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hobson, John
Nugent, Sir Richard
Walder, David


Hocking, Philip N.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walker, Peter


Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hollingworth, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hopkins, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Watts, James


Hornby, R. P.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Webster, David


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Whitelaw, William


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Partridge, E.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peel, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John
Wise, A. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, C. M.


Jackson, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


James, David
Pitman, I. J.
Woollam, John


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, Percivall
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch



Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Mr. Wakefield and


Joseph, Sir Keith
Prior, J. M. L.
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho








NOES


Abse, Leo
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Ainsley, William
Hilton, A. V.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles A. (B'ham, Perry Bar)
Probert, Arthur


Baird, John
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Proctor, W. T.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Reld, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hynd, John (AtterCliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowles, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Skeffington, Arthur


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Chetwynd, George
Kelley, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, Percy
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, Julian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Crossman, R. H. S.
Ledger, Ron
Spriggs, Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas


Darling, George
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhalf)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Deer, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McCann, John
Swingler, Stephen


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Sylvester, George


Dempsey, James
McInnes, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, Norman
McLeavy, Frank
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Driberg, Tom
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, Ernest


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, John


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Manuel, A. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Marsh, Richard
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Ward, Dame Irene


Finch, Harold
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Milne, Edward J.
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Gooch, E. G.
Monslow, Walter
Wilcock, Group Capt. C A. B.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Gray, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gunter, Ray
Neal, Harold
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
Pargiter, G. A.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parker, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.



Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, Frederick
Mr. J. Taylor.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order. I beg to give notice to the Chancellor that in view of the moving statement that he made about people on £5,000 a year—

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The

right hon. Gentleman can rise only to a point of order if that point of order concerns the Chair. Has the right hon. Gentleman a point of order?

Mr. Wilson: I was giving notice of a question I intend to ask the Chancellor, namely, what proposals he will now make about Members' salaries?

The Deputy-Chairman: Any question on a point of order must be put to the occupant of the Chair.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Motions relating to Finance Bill (Procedure) exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL (PROCEDURE) (ISLE OF MAN ACT, 1958)

Resolved,
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to

the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, provision may be made in any Finance Bill of the present Session for applying section two of the Isle of Man Act, 1958, to duties on bets by way of pool betting.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL (PROCEDURE) (OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855)

Resolved,
That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, provision may be made in any Finance Bill introduced in the present Session for and in connection with the redemption of the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, or any other Government Department, incurred for the purposes of provisions of that Act relating to the payment of surcharges by employers, including any increase in the sums payable by the said Minister out of such moneys under section nineteen of the Post Office Act, 1961, and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

(a) of such sum (not exceeding two hundred thousand pounds) for the redemption of the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855 as may be required to make up any deficiency in the assets available for that purpose in the 1855 Ottoman Guaranteed Loan Investment Account of the National Debt Commissioners;
(b) of the expenses of the Treasury in connection with the redemption of the Loan;
(c) of any increase in the money which may become so payable by virtue of any provision of the said Act applying to the Loan the provisions of section five of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955 (which relates to unclaimed moneys in respect of Government stock).—[Sir E. Boyle.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: We had hoped that, following the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would at least have explained how this Money Resolution will work. We thought that the Chancellor's proposal was to be used, following the lines of the Prime Minister's speech today, in times of "booming Britain". I understand that this is what the Prime Minister has told the Tory Women's Conference. This evening, the Chancellor said that it would be used only if, or when, Britain in fact began to boom. It is a little disconcerting to wonder whether the Money Resolution will ever become effective or not. The idea behind the Resolution is that the cost of collecting the surcharge, the printing and the selling of stamps, would fall mainly on the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and

we understand that it is necessary to provide in the Resolution for such expenses voted by the House.
For our part, we object in principle to the tax which the Chancellor has told us he proposes to impose in the form of a payroll tax on industry. We understand that the amount covered by the Money Resolution is about £50,000. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) suggested that the Government, obviously, would tax themselves as employers of labour and they probably would present Supplementary Estimates to meet the tax. We are almost beginning that process tonight.
We object to the Money Resolution for several reasons. In the first place, we believe that the Government have been stampeded into bringing in a payroll tax because the increase, about which the Economic Secretary told us yesterday, of 395,000 people in the labour force during 1960 has not brought any overall increase in production and, indeed, there has been a decrease in productivity. Secondly, all the efforts which the Government made to squeeze people, especially skilled labour, out of the car industry failed rather dismally at a time when the capital goods industries were quite unable to keep their delivery dates because of a shortage of skilled labour.
Introducing his payroll tax, the Chancellor used some extraordinary words. He said:
I propose to ask for power this year as a temporary expedient to collect such a surcharge, should it be needed, by attaching it to the employers' share of the National Insurance stamp.
Why were those words used by the Chancellor in presenting his Budget? I suggest that the introduction of them was the only condition on which the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance could be induced to withdraw his resignation. The right hon. Gentleman, rightly, objected to his Department being used to collect taxation of this type.
The book written by Sir Geoffrey King on the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance sets out the basis on which the Department functions. He says:
The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is concerned almost exclusively with the administration in Great Britain of four schemes that provide cash allowances designed


to meet a wide variety of circumstances—war pensions, National Insurance pensions and benefits, industrial injury benefits and family allowances".
I and my hon. Friends object to the use of a Department such as the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for the purpose of collecting taxation of this type. We believe that the work of the Ministry will not be enhanced by it and that if it is to be utilised in this way much of the good work which it has done will be dissipated. I very much agree with the Minister's objection to the use of his Ministry in this way. We wish that he had had the courage to go further in his objection and to resign his office rather than agree to allow his Department to be used in this manner.
In the debates on the Budget questions were asked about the position of the Government as employers. Remploy in particular was mentioned. We know that public money is being, and has been, spent to very good purpose on Remploy in enabling otherwise unemployable persons to produce in covered employment goods which otherwise could not have been produced. We know this from the answers given by the Economic Secretary.
Not long ago the Government were complaining that the costs of production in Remploy were too uneconomic even for that type of organisation. Now they propose to make those costs of production even more uneconomic. Those private employers who now employ above their own quota of disabled people will suffer a great disadvantage through their generosity in continuing to employ people above the quota required in order to assist in this great problem of finding employment for disabled people.
One of the objections which the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance rightly made was that the men employed in industry will probably argue that, if employer can afford to pay a further 4s. on the National Insurance stamp, why should not the employee's contribution be reduced by that amount? This is an argument of some substance. We are concerned with the effect of this tax. The Chancellor said:
…when we are faced with a chronic shortage of labour it would act as an incentive to…economy in the use of manpower and to investment in labour saving equipment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April; Vol. 638, c. 808.]

We are much in favour of creating a high-investment economy. That is why we favour higher taxation of distributed dividends than taxation on profits which are ploughed back into industry, but to impose this kind of gimmick on an economy which encourages a high rate of distribution of industrial earnings merely results in employers increasing the selling price of their own products. This is not a good recommendation for increasing our exports.
We know from the speech of the Economic Secretary that there will be no differential rate in this tax as between areas where there is unemployment and those which have little or no unemployment. The hon. Gentleman told us that in Northern Ireland, for example, the proceeds of the surcharge will 50 to the Northern Ireland Exchequer. I was left wondering what possible difference the hon. Gentleman supposes that this will make. There is already a considerable number of factories built by the Northern Ireland Government which are either completely unused or certainly underused. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman believes that the retention by the Northern Ireland Government of the tax collected in Northern Ireland will make the slightest difference in the way of the provision of further employment in Northern Ireland. If the Financial Secretary can explain how this comes about, we shall be grateful.
We now know that the tax will be applied to areas of unemployment, such as Scotland, in precisely the same way as it will be applied in areas where there is no great problem. One can only imagine that in those conditions, instead of 3½ per cent. unemployment in Scotland, we may well soon see the figure back to the region of 6 per cent. According to yesterday's Report on the shipbuilding industry, the future of the North-East Coast and other shipbuilding areas is fairly bleak. In such areas, we seem to be inviting some of those who are employed to join those who are not, because the Chancellor apparently believes that we are suffering from a chronic shortage of labour. In other words, it seems to me that we are reaching a position in which we spend large sums of public money under the Local Employment Act to bring work to special areas or development districts, and


tonight we are asked to agree to more public expenditure to minimise the effect in such areas of the public money which we spend under the Local Employment Act, which is hardly a good way of planning the economy.
I ask hon. Members to consider the effects upon different types of labour. The argument used by the Chancellor is that modernisation or automation will be encouraged at a faster pace. These modern techniques, however—not wholly, but in the main—displace unskilled and semi-skilled labour. The shortage from which we are suffering is of skilled labour. By displacing, for example, a semi-skilled assembler in the motor-car industry, we do not fill a vacancy for a skilled man in the heavy electrical engineering industry.
In the case of industries which do not exactly lend themselves to mechanisation—for example, the building trade—the Chancellor is now trying to make it too expensive for employers to retain the services of some of the bricklayers and people of that sort whom they at present employ. As, however, all the employers in that industry will have to pay the same type of tax, it will not divert labour from one employer to another, but will result in a number of people who are now employed—say, skilled bricklayers—not being able to find employment in that industry. Therefore, the only alternative is for those people to look for unskilled work. As I have said already, our problem is that we are short of skilled, and not unskilled, labour.
Does the Chancellor really think that we are suffering from a chronic shortage of elderly or disabled workers? Looking at the returns of the Ministry of Labour, we find that a large proportion of the 52 per cent. of people who have been unemployed for over eight weeks are middle-aged. If the Chancellor were a private employer making the choice between, say, a man of 30 and one of 50, obviously he would choose to render redundant the older man. If, however, he were the Minister of Labour, I wonder for which of the two he would rather try to find employment.
In other words, we are helping to create an unemployment problem among older people who would then have to remain on unemployment benefit for

much longer than would the younger man, and in that way I believe the moneys that we are being asked to spend tonight are merely to enhance the amount of public money which we shall be spending when this payroll tax comes into being.
I believe that the real object of this exercise is that the Government are attempting to cover up an overall shortage of skilled labour. It is a problem which has worried many of us for a long time. Indeed, we warned them a long while ago that if they refused to accept the need for active Government intervention in order to train skilled labour we should reach the position that we are in tonight. I have warned them on many occasions that a continuation of that attitude would result in substantial unemployment among unskilled labour and an equally substantial demand for non-existent technicians and skilled manpower.
We have already reached a position in which there is an overall shortage of skilled labour, and if tonight the Committee agrees to this Money Resolution it could be the beginning of the squeezing out of industry of unskilled and semiskilled people, which would eventually mean a pretty heavy unemployment problem.
Because we object to the use of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for this purpose, a purpose for which it was never created, and because we believe that it is not in the interests of the nation that public moneys should be spent on a gimmick which has not been shown to be in any way advantageous to the nation as a whole, I invite my hon. Friends to vote against this Motion.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: We are now dealing with this Money Resolution which would seem to indicate that the Government are a little worried about what the economic circumstances and the position of trade and export of this country are likely to be in a few months' time. We are also dealing with the possible levying of a tax which, for some reason or another, is to be put off till after the borough council elections next month.
The main objection that I have to the Money Resolution and to the whole proposal is that it will to my mind completely distort—in fact, prostitute—the whole of the aims and ideas of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It will have the effect of turning the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance primarily into a pettifogging tax collector jumping about on the end of a piece of string held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be pulled up when the Chancellor wants to do so and to be let down again when the Chancellor thinks the Minister has done his job and needs a rest before performing again on the piece of string later.
This is not what the Ministry of National Insurance was created for. The Ministry was created in 1944 when we were beginning to set in motion some preparations for the social legislation which was proposed to be brought in when the war was over. One finds that in the Act of 17th November, 1944, to establish a Ministry of National Insurance, the Minister was given three main functions. He had transferred to him all the functions of the Minister of Health with regard to national health insurance, old-age pensions, widows and orphans, old-age contributory pensions and supplementary pensions. In addition, he took over from the Minister of Labour and National Service unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, and from the Secretary of State all functions dealing with workmen's compensation.
To the best of my knowledge, the functions of the Ministry have only been altered once since that date. That was in 1953, when the functions of the Ministry of Pensions were transferred to the Minister of National Insurance. That, I think, is the only alteration to be made in the functions of the Minister, and at present he is, as Minister, solely concerned with administering certain social service provisions for the people of the country as a whole, and, in particular, with the functions that he took over from the Ministry of Pensions in relation to war pensioners.
Admittedly, one of these functions taken over right from the beginning from the Ministry of Health and re-emphasised in the National Insurance

Act, 1946, was that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance would collect a small amount of money—and I stress the word "small"—from the National Insurance contributions to be paid over to the Ministry of Health for the National Health Service. One can see now that, with the increase in the National Health Service contribution, this tax-gathering side of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is perhaps being recorded as a precedent for using the Ministry for other tax-gathering purposes. At any rate, up to now the money that the Ministry has been collecting from the National Insurance contribution and, more recently, the National Health contributions has always been designated for use in one of the other social services fairly closely associated with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance itself.
Now we are having a completely new departure which may lead to a complete change in the nature of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It may be possible that the Minister will be responsible for collecting up to £200 million a year on behalf of Her Majesty's Government which has nothing whatsoever to do with the social services and the function which the Minister is really responsible for carrying out. He will just collect the £200 million and hand it over to the Chancellor, and it will be used for any purpose the Government then desire, which may have nothing to do with the social services for which the Minister is himself responsible. We are asked to add £50,000 towards the cost of the machinery of National Insurance to carry out this odious function.
I am not surprised that that there is not on the Treasury Bench any one of the Ministers the future of whose Ministries we are now discussing. We are asked to pay money out of the Consolidated Fund for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and there is not a single Minister from that Ministry here to listen to what must be regarded as an important debate affecting the whole future development of that Ministry.
There is present only one Minister and he is the Minister who is responsible for moving the Money Resolution. Normally, if there is a Money Resolution which affects a particular Ministry we expect to see someone from that Ministry


sitting opposite in addition to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But none of the Ministers responsible for the Department whose future we are discussing is silting opposite to show his obvious support for the Money Resolution. This must lend colour to the suggestions that have been going round in the last few weeks about the hurried scramble together of Ministers, and the calling of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to a Cabinet meeting discussing the Budget. It must lend colour to rumours of disputes in the Government over this, leading almost to the resignation of Ministers from the Department responsible for these social services. Otherwise, surely they would be here to see the birth of this great new idea for the future of their Department. Their absence speaks for itself and it will be remembered in future debates on the Finance Bill.
As has been said already, this tax is completely indiscriminate. It will undoubtedly lead to Supplementary Estimates for the various spending Departments. It will also bear heavily on industries which have a large reliance on manpower and, in particular, on local authorities, where a large proportion of their expenditure is on the employment of staff and labour of all kinds. It would not surprise me in the least, if this tax were introduced at lull level, that the local authorities would have to find between £20 million and £25 million from local rates to meet the levy at the maximum level which has been suggested.
The last time that we had a change in local government finance the local authorities were supposed to benefit by £30 million, but the Chancellor took two-thirds of it away. Now that the Chancellor is taking £20 million away from the local authorities, can we hope that two-thirds of it will be handed back by an addition to the block grant to make up for what was taken away last time? Perhaps I am being too hopeful.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Can my hon. Friend say whether this £25 million includes what Scottish local authorities will have to pay?

Mr. Reynolds: I suggested a figure of £20 million to £25 million, but it is not possible to give an exact figure. I intended, it to cover local authorities in

Scotland as well as in England and Wales. This extra expenditure will have to be met by the ratepayers.
Then there is the agricultural industry which, though not so much as in the past, is still a fairly large employer of labour. Presumably, if this tax is introduced, higher agricultural subsidies will be called for. No doubt the National Farmers' Union and others concerned will quickly add the extra cost to the cost of production and rush to the Minister of Agriculture for increased subsidies.
This will also call for increased defence expenditure, because the Armed Forces are so dependent upon manpower. Presumably, they will pay their 4s. a week each for every soldier, sailor and airman, and that will have to be found by the taxpayer.
This tax is indiscriminate, as apparently the same amount is to be paid by every industry, irrespective of its financial soundness. If there is to be such a tax, I insist that there should be two conditions: the money raised from it should go to the social services, and it should be levied on a percentage basis.
In the past, we have always maintained that contributions paid by employers, employees and the Government into the National Insurance Fund are used for the social services. That policy should be maintained. This money should be paid into the National Insurance Fund for investment to help to provide future benefits from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
Instead of there being a flat rate for all industries, the tax should be levied on a percentage basis, so that employers in industries where there are low wages—depressed industries—will not be forced to pay the same amount per worker as the more profitable industries. If more profitable industries can afford to pay higher wages than the others, then they should also pay a higher payroll tax as well.
My main concern, however, is that this will alter the character of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. That is wrong. Tax collecting should be carried out by the Inland Revenue and other departments of the Treasury, and not by a Minister whose


prime responsibility is to provide the social services which our people need so much.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: I have risen with some hesitation, because I had hoped to hear something from Members opposite, many of whom are present and taking an interest in this debate.
We heard from the Press on Tuesday morning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a rough reception at a meeting of Conservative back benchers on Monday night about his proposal for a payroll tax. The report leaked to the Press, much as we are accustomed to reports of our party meetings leaking to the Press. It appears that no one had very much to say in favour of this proposal, and some came to the conclusion that he did not intend it seriously. During the debate on the Budget, there was criticism of the proposal from both sides of the Committee, and a very poor defence was put up for it. This Motion specifically refers to the way in which the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is to be used in collecting this tax.
Earlier today, the Chancellor said that the operation of this tax, this regulator, as contrasted with his other regulator, would involve a delay of several weeks. That is something on which we are entitled to much more detailed information, because our experience of changes in the National Insurance system is that there is a delay of several months before the changes can operate. I am not sure what the delay in this case would be, because it involves only a flat-rate change for all employers in respect of each of their employees and does not involve any contribution from the employees, or any benefits.
Nevertheless, the Chancellor said that there would be a considerable delay, and in that case I cannot see what value this regulator would have in an inflationary situation. The whole point of the Chancellor's case is that at a moment of crisis he should be able quickly to mop up a certain amount of purchasing power. If there is to be a delay of weeks, or even months, before

this machinery can become effective, much of its value will be lost.
In addition to that, there are the other objections—the increase of inflationary pressure on the economy, the way in which local government would be affected, the effect on the costs of the hospital services. The Government's excuse for imposing the new National Health Service charges was that that was a way of keeping the Health Service costs in check, but this proposal will increase those costs by putting on an extra labour charge.
There is also the effect on public transport undertakings, which throughout the country are in great difficulties and having to close down routes and are unable to meet the legitimate wage claims of their workers. There is inflationary pressure in that sense.
I am also deeply concerned about the effect which this new tax may have in the next few years on the employment prospects of young workers. In the next few years, there will be an especially large number of school leavers. The number increased this year over last year by 20 per cent. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is here, because he has some responsibility in this matter, and I hope that he shares my view that the Government's proposals will increase his difficulties.
The number of school leavers will increase still more next year, when it will be 30 per cent. more than it was last year. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour are going round the country urging employers to provide greater training opportunities for the extra school leavers this year and next year and the following year. I hope they realise that their task has been made more difficult by this proposal. If an employer is faced with extra labour costs, his first reaction will be to stop taking on new staff. Before he makes anyone redundant, he will stop recruitment, and the first victims of that are likely to be the school leavers.
What is more, even if the tax is never imposed, its threat may make employers hesitate before they plan to take on more apprentices, for example, because they will know what they will have to take on an apprentice for a five-year liability and at any time in that five-year period


the Government may introduce this tax. They will not know for what duration or what amount the tax will be introduced, but they will appreciate that there is a danger of their costs being increased. Employers will therefore be less likely to plan to increase the number of their apprentices.
For those and many other reasons, this is a bad proposal, and I am sorry that our objections to it have not been supported by hon. Members opposite.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) commented on the fact that there was no one from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance present. It is recognised that this special surcharge on employers is put forward as a fiscal regulation. It is therefore definitely the responsibility of the Treasury, just as the National Health Service Contribution Bill which we debated some time ago was quite avowedly and frankly the responsibility of the Treasury. For that reason only, no representative of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is present. Although the Financial Resolution which we are discussing refers to the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, this is definitely something for which the Treasury is responsible.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He said that surely this was asking the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to come into some economic operation for which it was never designed. I have two answers to that. First, if he looks at my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech he will see that this point was made there. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
I propose to ask for power this year as a temporary expedient to collect such a surcharge, should it be needed, by attaching it to the employers' share of the National Insurance Stamp.
Later he said:
I recognise that the method of collection with the National Insurance contribution presents difficulties, particularly the risk of confusion between this surcharge and the contribution. Any such confusion might undermine the very important contributory principle on which

National Insurance is based. However, it is the only machinery readily available…
In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend recognised the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say:
I will, however, continue to examine other methods of levying such a surcharge. Should Parliament be asked to grant this power again next year, I would put forward fresh proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April 1961; Vol. 638, c. 808–9.]
In view of those remarks, I do not think it is fair to talk about the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and his relation to the Treasury in quite the terms used by the hon. Gentleman.
There is the further point which I mentioned when speaking during the Budget debate earlier today. I pointed out that there was nothing altogether new in this regulator. Indeed, if one looks back to the 1944 White Paper on Government policy, one sees that it was envisaged that the rate of National Insurance contributions might be varied for economic purposes, and many economists of varying political schools of thought have thought that the National Insurance contributions might be used, not for insurance purposes, but for economic purposes. This is not a completely new idea. All that we are considering tonight is an entirely new approach to an element in the contributions, the proceeds of which would be available directly to the Exchequer.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Can the Financial Secretary say whether this surcharge would be embodied in a stamp on the National Insurance card, or would be paid by cash by the employer to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance?

Sir E. Boyle: It would be a stamp.
I come back to the speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). He made the speech which he was not able to make during the Budget debate, and I very much enjoyed listening to it, but I can only say to him what I said earlier when he was not present, understandably enough. The special surcharge on employers is proposed by the Government as an economic regulator, and not as a tax on employment. I also said earlier, and I repeat it now, that I understand the fears which have been expressed by many hon. Members, including a number of my hon. Friends, about the


adverse effects which they feel this proposal might have on those areas with local employment problems. The surcharge at its maximum rate would add only £10 a year to the cost of employing a man. I do not believe that a tax at that level would materially affect the problem of local employment, or nullify—and this is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newton—the positive measures which the Government are taking to solve this problem. I put it to the Committee—as I put it earlier today—that I just do not believe that we can possibly regulate the British economy without some general controls as part of the Chancellor's armoury.

Mr. James Callaghan: Come over here.

Sir E. Boyle: I am talking about general controls. [Laughter.] Hon. Members must come up to date a little about this matter. It is extraordinary how furious they get when anything new is proposed from this side of the House. We have never denied, as a party—we have always believed—that there must be an active policy by the Government and the financial authorities to secure a balance between our productive resources and the claims made upon them. We have said ever since the war that monetary policy and budgetary policy and policy for the location of industry must remain in the permanent armoury of any Government.
The only difference between the two sides concerns the use not of general

controls but selective controls, to stop people spending their own money on specific goods or projects. The hon. Member for Newton is an able and persistent advocate of economic planning, in the sense in which it was carried out by the Labour Government after the war, and he has always made it clear that he is a supporter of selective controls. I do not believe that any Government, whatever its economic policy, could dispense with some general economic controls, which operated on demand right across the board. No Labour Government could dispense with general controls. It is a matter of deciding what those controls should be.

All forms of economic regulation have their disadvantages. I pointed out some of the disadvantages—which we fully recognise on this side of the Committee—of general monetary control and also of hire-purchase control. It is clear from our economic history since the war that any Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his political colour, needs rather more weapons in his armoury than he has had in recent years. It is in this context that we put forward the special surcharge on employers as a reasonable contribution to the economic weapons at the disposal of the Chancellor. Despite the criticism that we have had in the Budget debate nothing will make me believe that my right hon. and learned Friend was wrong or unjustified in putting forward this proposal.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 254, Noes 172.

Division No. 141.]
AYES
[10.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Box, Donald
Cooke, Robert


Aitken, W. T.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper, A. E.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Brewis, John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Allason, James
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Brooman-White, R.
Cordle, John


Arbuthnot, John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Corfield, F. V.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Browne, Percy, (Torrington)
Costain, A. P.


Barber, Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Coulson, J. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Buck, Antony
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Barter, John
Bullard, Denys
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Cunningham, Knox


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Curran, Charles


Berkeley, Humphry
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Dance, James


Bidgood, John C.
Channon, H. P. G.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Chataway, Christopher
de Ferranti, Basil


Bingham, R. M.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Doughty, Charles


Black, Sir Cyril
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Drayson, G. B.


Bossom, Clive
Cleaver, Leonard
du Cann, Edward


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cole, Norman
Eden, John




Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, J.
Pym, Francis


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leather, E. H. C.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Leavey, J. A.
Ramsden, James


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Peter


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Farr, John
Lindsay, Martin
Rees, Hugh


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Renton, David


Fisher, Nigel
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Foster, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Longden, Gilbert
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Loveys, Walter H.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Freeth, Denzil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roots, William


Gammans, Lady
MacArthur, Ian
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Gardner, Edward
McLaren Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Sharples, Richard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Shaw, M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Goodhart, Philip
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gurden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Sir John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tapsell, Peter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Teeling, William


Hastings, Stephen
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L C.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hendry, Forbes
Mills, Stratton
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morgan, William
Turner, Colin


Hocking, Philip N.
Morrison, John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hollingworth, John
Nabarro, Gerald
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hopkins, Alan
Neave, Airey
Vane, W. M. F.


Hornby, R. P.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walder, David


Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker, Peter


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wetts, John (Maidstone)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Whitelaw, William


Iremonger, T. L.
Partridge, E.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, John
William, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Jackson, John
Percival, Ian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


James, David
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitman, I. J.
Woodnutt, Mark


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss Edith
Worsley, Marcus


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pott, Percivall
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch



Kershaw, Anthony
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kimball, Marcus

Mr. Noble and Mr. Frank Pearson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Finch, Harold


Ainsley, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Forman, J. C.


Awbery, Stan
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Benson, Sir George
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gooch, E. G.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blyton, William
Deer, George
Courlay, Harry


Boardman, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Greenwood, Anthony


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Delargy, Hugh
Grey, Charles


Bowles, Frank
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Ray


Boyden, James
Diamond, John
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Dodds, Norman
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hannan, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Callaghan, James
Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Hayman, F. H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)


Chetwynd, George
Evans, Albert
Herbison, Miss Margaret







Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Marsh, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hilton, A. V.
Mason, Roy
Snow, Julian


Holman, Percy
Mellish, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Holt, Arthur
Mendelson, J. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Houghton, Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Milne, Edward J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hoy, James H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stonehouse, John


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moody, A. S.
Stones, William


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Frederick
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold
Swain, Thomas


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Swingler, Stephen


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Sylvester, George


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jeger, George
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Parker, John
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkin, B. T.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurence
Timmons, John


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tomney, Frank


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Frederick
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Edwin


King, Dr. Horace
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Warbey, William


Lawson, George
Prentice, R. E.
Weitzman, David


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Randall, Harry
Whitlock, William


Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John
Wigg, George


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Redhead, E. C.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McCann, John
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


MacColl, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Frederick


McInnes, James
Roberts, Goromwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Manuel, A. C.
Skeffington, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Mapp, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)



Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Irving and Mr. Charles A. Howell.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, or any other Government Department, incurred for the purposes of provisions of that Act relating to the payment of surcharges by employers, including any increase in the sums payable by the said Minister out of such moneys under section nineteen of the Post Office Act, 1961, and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—

(a) of such sum (not exceeding two hundred thousand pounds) for the redemption of the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855 as may be required to make up any deficiency in the assets available for that purpose in the 1855 Ottoman Guaranteed Loan Investment Account of the National Debt Commissioners;
(b) of the expenses of the Treasury in connection with the redemption of the Loan;
(c) of any increase in the money which may become so payable by virtue of any provision of the said Act applying to the

Loan the provisions of section five of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955 (which relates to unclaimed moneys in respect of Government stock).

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for maintaining or restoring the wholesomeness of the rivers and other inland or coastal waters of England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act, and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums falling to be so paid in consequence of the provisions of the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (SMALL BOROUGHS AND TOWNS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Percivall Pott: After the long debate which we have had on the Budget, it may appear that the subject which I am raising is somewhat mundane and of little importance, but in my opinion it is very closely connected with the major problem of industrial output in this country. Although in any small town the area of industrial production will be small, if it is aggregated over the whole country it becomes a fairly large factor in our output.
I raise the matter tonight because in my constituency, the ancient borough of Devizes, we have just had a further factory close and are finding the greatest of difficulty in enticing new industries to come into the area. Failure to do so means that the capital invested in buildings and industrial hereditaments goes out of production. Also, rate revenue is lost on the sites. Much more important, however, is that the skilled labour force has no employment in its home town.
Largely as a result of the efficiency of Conservative policy during the past ten years, we have no serious unemployment in south-west England, but we do find that, if a factory closes in one of our smaller towns, skilled workmen are often forced to commute 10, 15 or 20 miles a day to have new employment. It is my experience that it has an ill effect on the efficiency and output of workpeople if, day after day, through all weathers, they have to make such long journeys to their place of employment. Also, after they have done it for some months, they are very tempted to try to find accommodation nearer their place of work, with consequent complications in stimulating the demand for houses in areas already short of accommodation.
A further ill effect occurs when large numbers of children leaving school wish to receive training either as apprentices or in a skilled trade. Many parents who take their responsibilities seriously decide that they must move their homes to another area where the skilled man

can have employment and, at the same time, supervise his children during their period of training. This leads to a serious imbalance between the skilled and unskilled sectors of the labour force, and, as I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, we have had plenty of experience recently to show that, where we have an imbalance between the unskilled and the skilled sectors of our labour force, the area becomes supersensitive to even quite minor trade recessions.
I have made inquiries to find out why new industries have been unwilling to come into the small towns. This kind of thing has frequently happened in the past. The factory which closed down in my area was the ultimate successor of a clothing industry in the seventeenth century. It became a snuff factory, then it became a tobacco factory, and now it has finished altogether.
Incoming industries face two major problems. The first is to find houses for key workers who are needed if a new factory is to be opened. My hon. Friend has no responsibility in this. It is a matter for the local authorities. In passing, I should say that, if it is to the benefit of an area to have new industries coming in, many local authorities will have to reconsider their method of allotting available accommodation. I know how difficult it is for small authorities. I know only too well the enormous pressure that is brought upon them if they give a house to anyone who is not an old inhabitant in the area. If, however, it is in the national interest and in the interest of the locality that industry should be maintained in their areas, they must be willing to make the housing available.
The second problem that arises falls fully within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am told that when inquiries are made regarding vacant industrial sites, the next step is to inquire through the local or provincial offices of the Ministry concerning the labour situation in the area. The Department, with its usual accuracy, informs the applicant that there is no pool of unemployment in the district. I can therefore well understand why some of the firms decide that it is not an area into which to move, but I believe that those facts do not give the true position of the labour situation in the


area. If one were able to point out to the would-be industrialist who wants to open up in the district that there was a potential skilled labour force of a considerable number of people who had to seek a source of employment outside the area, we might find industrialists much more willing to come to the district.
If we are to maintain virile and efficient small communities of a semi-rural nature, it is essential that we create a balanced community which enables the skilled section of the community and the young who wish to enter industry to get opportunities in their home area. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether it would be possible for him to consider not only making available to would-be employers the number of people on the unemloyed register, but to give an idea of the skilled staff who daily leave the district to find work in other areas.

11.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Pott) has raised an interesting and, as he said, an important problem. It is interesting because it arises not from a situation of depression and unemployment, as so often we find in Adjournment debates, but from prosperity and full employment. My hon. Friend has referred to his constituency and the area and he has said that thanks to the activities of the Conservative Government, there is no serious unemployment in the area. There is, in fact, very low unemployment in the area.
In the latest figures which I have, the provisional figures for Wiltshire, for example, show that on 10th April the percentage of unemployment for the county was 0·7 per cent. In the town of Devizes it was 0·6 per cent., in Melksham, which is seven miles from Devizes, it was 0·8 per cent. and in Chippenham, 0·4 per cent. Therefore, this is an interesting and important point that my hon. Friend has raised. It is important because it shows that even in areas of full employment such as that, real problems can arise.
It is true, as my hon. Friend has said, that many of the residents of Devizes and similar small towns work outside the place where they reside. In Devizes, I

believe that they go to Trowbridge, Melksham Calne and Chippenham. To our knowledge, those seem to be the main centres, and not many people go much further a field. I agree that long journeys to work may well impair efficiency and that it is desirable, where possible, to avoid adding to the existing congestion in large urban areas. No doubt, it is true that the ideal situation is an industrial structure which is well diversified from the point of view of both industries and occupations. But unfortunately this is an ideal which is extremely difficult to achieve particularly for this crowded island of ours, and with modern transport it is natural for travel-to-work links to develop between nearby areas.
I think it is right to say that it is not reasonable to expect a small town by itself to provide a full range of employment opportunities. One does not even find that in the large towns, because many large towns are heavily dependent upon one or two important industries which, as my hon. Friend said in relation to a small town, would be super-sensitive to trade recessions.
But I agree that diversification of industry is desirable everywhere possible. I know that my hon. Friend will agree when I say that as far as the Government are concerned, our priority of activity must be the needs of high unemployment areas, and our distribution of industry policy, both in the incentives offered under the Local Employment Act and the controls exercised under the system of industrial development certificates, are framed to that end. I am sure my hon. Friend would also agree that it would not be in the interests of an area itself to encourage industrial expansion where labour is scarce, and the Government's main efforts must be directed to seeing that developments are steered to the areas where they are most needed.
However, that does not mean that industry cannot go to other and more prosperous areas such as the areas that my hon. Friend has mentioned. If, for instance, there were a vacant factory in Devizes, the prospective employer would not need an industrial development certificate. But this, as I understand it, is the problem as my hon. Friend sees it, and I hope that I am right. He says that if a factory closes, such as the case


that he mentioned—the impending closure of the Imperial Tobacco Company factory in Devizes—then people who may be redundant when that factory closes are very soon absorbed and there is no obvious pool of unemployment. There is a prospective employer coming into the area looking to see if it is worth while taking up that empty factory, and if there is no skilled labour available he is not interested in taking up the factory.
Before I deal with the points which ware raised by my hon. Friend, it may be as well if I refer to the impending closure of the Imperial Tobacco factory, which is due to close on 31st May. Obviously, the first and most important question concerns the men and women who are employed in this factory and who will become redundant, and on this at any rate I can give my hon. Friend encouraging information about the employment position.
About ten of the workers concerned have already found other jobs and are shortly leaving to take them up. In addition, some of the skilled workers are being offered alternative jobs by their present employer in Bristol if they want them. Meanwhile my officers in Devizes have arranged to take advance registrations from the remainder. As far as the women are concerned—and they form the bulk of the labour force of this factory—there are good prospects of placing those who become redundant in food, processing, distribution and footwear firms in nearby areas. I understand that these firms will be able to arrange transport to bring these women to and from their new jobs.
As to the men, I am sure that the younger men will not find any difficulty in getting other jobs. They should find openings fairly easily in engineering firms within the area. But I should add that there may be difficulties in placing some of the older workers who become redundant, and our officers in the Ministry of Labour will make every effort to find them jobs as quickly as possible. I am also informed that the Imperial Tobacco Company has agreed to make severance payments, based on the length of service, to those who become redundant. I mention that because I know that my hon. Friend is extremely interested in everything that happens in his constituency and will be

anxious to know what is happening to those who will become redundant.
The main point that he put was in relation to information which is given by our local offices to prospective employers. I think that is the particular point on which he would like information. When a firm is thinking of setting up or occupying a new or vacant factory, one of the first things it looks for is an available supply of labour.
Will there be enough men and women to fill the new jobs, particularly the skilled jobs? Obviously such a pool of labour is more readily available in towns where there is high unemployment, for example in the development areas but, as my hon. Friend suggested, in towns where unemployment figures are low, such as in his own constituency, a different problem arises. Skilled labour often lives in the town but does not go to work there; that is, the skilled workers commute to other areas.
My hon. Friend asks whether we could not encourage small firms to develop in towns like Devizes by telling them of the potential supply of skilled and unskilled workers now travelling long distances to work and who would prefer to work in their own area. My officers would certainly refer prospective employers to the potential supply of labour from among commuters, but my hon. Friend must appreciate that those workers may not wish to change their jobs because of the better wages or conditions they already enjoy or because they find their present jobs more congenial. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it would be quite wrong for the Ministry to try to encourage employers to poach labour from one another, but some who commute would prefer local employment and they register at our local offices for this purpose. They would be registered for new vacancies in their own areas when they arose and the prospective employers would be informed of their existence.
My officers, of course, do not have comprehensive information about workers who travel to work in other areas but I assure my Friend that the staffs of local offices do their best to explain the full implications of the pattern of local employment to prospective employers. They do not rely simply


on unemployment figures which, I agree, do not tell the whole story in many cases. This was the real matter which my hon. Friend directed at me, and I assure him that every assistance will be given by the officers in the Ministry of Labour to any

prospective employer who wishes to go into Devizes to take over any vacant factory space that exists.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.